94 Million Not In Work Force

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
NOW I Know Why They Can't Get A Job

(CNSNews.com) - The United States ran a merchandise trade deficit of $734,316,300,000 in 2016, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.

During 2016, the U.S. imported $2,188,940,500,000 in goods but exported only $1,454,624,200,000.

The People’s Republic of China was the greatest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit for the year. The U.S bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China was $347,037,900,000. This deficit resulted from the U.S. importing $462,813,000,000 in goods from China while exporting only $115,775,100,00 in goods to China.

Japan was the second largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit in 2016. The U.S. imported $132,201,800,000 in goods from Japan while exporting only $63,264,300,000—resulting in a deficit of $68,937,600,000.

German was the third largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit. The U.S. imported $114,227,400,000 from Germany while exporting $49,362,000,000—resulting in a deficit of $64,865,400,000.

Mexico was the fourth largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit. The U.S. imported $294,151,000,000 from Mexico while exporting $230,959,100,000—resulting in a deficit of $63,191,900,000.

Ireland was the fifth largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit. The U.S. imported $45,503,900,000 from Ireland while exporting $9,555,700,000 to Ireland—resulting in a deficit of $35,948,200,000.
2016 U.S. Merchandise Trade Deficit: $734,316,300,000
------------------------------------------------------

(CNSNews.com) With the United States running trade deficits in both goods and services combined and goods alone in 2016, the nation has not seen a trade surplus in any of the last 41 years, according to data published by the Census Bureau.

The last time the United States ran a trade surplus was 1975--when Gerald Ford was president.

The Census Bureau has published historical data on annual U.S. trade balances going back to 1960. In 13 of the 16 years from 1960 through 1975, the U.S. ran goods-and-services trade surpluses and surpluses in the trade of goods (merchandise) alone.

But in each of the 41 years after 1975, according to data released by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. has run both a merchandise trade deficit and a goods and services deficit.

USA Has Run Annual Trade Deficits for 41 Straight Years
 
Love how Trump makes you idiots go running for squirrels while he goes about his business.
upload_2017-2-7_11-5-22.png
 
...an adult discussion about trade deficits...
--and yet the tread's title started out saying we got 94 million not in the work force (you may want to change that to the 95.4M number for January -- from .Not in Labor Force ) and then you start talking about employment and finally you continue moving over to the trade deficit.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that they're all related more or less, but what I'm getting here is that you're seeing a relationship that I can't see and maybe you can help me out. Here's the 95M not in the workforce:
not95wf.png

It's been growing steadily for years along with the population. My guess is that this is not the problem we're concerned about, what we care about here is jobs so lets look instead at the employment/population ratio:
notemp17.png

This is where we see that something bad's going on. So are we saying the trade deficit had something to do with it? Let's look:
tradefct17.png

The fact is that we had a much bigger % of the population working when the trade deficit shrank. Bottom line: if we want more jobs then we want a bigger trade deficit.
 
No President has ever had as many people out f the labor force as President Trump

His economy is a failure
 
No President has ever had as many people out f the labor force as President Trump. His economy is a failure
Please tell us how you figure that. These are the latest numbers (from Not in Labor Force ):

Not in Labor Force, Thousands of Persons, Monthly, Not Seasonally Adjusted

2016-09-01 94,456
2016-10-01 94,539
2016-11-01 95,089
2016-12-01 95,774
2017-01-01 95,406​

The numbers were going up until Trump became president and then they started going down. The peak was in Dec. 2016.
 
No President has ever had as many people out f the labor force as President Trump. His economy is a failure
Please tell us how you figure that. These are the latest numbers (from Not in Labor Force ):

Not in Labor Force, Thousands of Persons, Monthly, Not Seasonally Adjusted

2016-09-01 94,456
2016-10-01 94,539
2016-11-01 95,089
2016-12-01 95,774
2017-01-01 95,406​

The numbers were going up until Trump became president and then they started going down. The peak was in Dec. 2016.

Nice try

Obama was President on January first
 
No President has ever had as many people out f the labor force as President Trump. His economy is a failure
Please tell us how you figure that. These are the latest numbers (from Not in Labor Force ):

Not in Labor Force, Thousands of Persons, Monthly, Not Seasonally Adjusted

2016-09-01 94,456
2016-10-01 94,539
2016-11-01 95,089
2016-12-01 95,774
2017-01-01 95,406​

The numbers were going up until Trump became president and then they started going down. The peak was in Dec. 2016.

Nice try

Obama was President on January first
Not sure what the "try" bit's all about but what we got here is that your post said "No President has ever had as many people out of the labor force as President Trump" and now you say that the latest numbers were only for Obama and not for Trump at all.

So like I asked, please tell us how you figure that Trump's number was worse. Sure, we all understand that you don't like what the rest of us sees but that's not what the question --namely, where are you seeing Trump's numbers?
 
Love how Trump makes you idiots go running for squirrels while he goes about his business.
View attachment 111236

Gee! I am shocked.

Liberals unable to contribute to an adult discussion about trade deficits immediately launch a non-sequitur attack on the President.

Feeling forgotten? Feeling left out? As you should be ...
There is nothing to contribute. You don't understand trade. I could ask you about the most basic theory on trade, the theory of comparative advantage...and you wouldn't be able to detail me what that theory is without looking it up.

Just like you can't debate a 5-year old about Newtonian physics, you can't debate the uneducated in something they don't have a clue about...which, in your case, seems to be economics.
 
Love how Trump makes you idiots go running for squirrels while he goes about his business.
View attachment 111236

Gee! I am shocked.

Liberals unable to contribute to an adult discussion about trade deficits immediately launch a non-sequitur attack on the President.

Feeling forgotten? Feeling left out? As you should be ...
There is nothing to contribute. You don't understand trade. I could ask you about the most basic theory on trade, the theory of comparative advantage...and you wouldn't be able to detail me what that theory is without looking it up.

Just like you can't debate a 5-year old about Newtonian physics, you can't debate the uneducated in something they don't have a clue about...which, in your case, seems to be economics.
LOL - you're right. I don't understand international trade.

25 years of dealing across borders with Japan, China, and most South American countries. Founder and CEO of a company with offices in 14 countries, before I retired.

Frankly, I've spent more time in offices in foreign countries than you've spent in the real world.

But, you're right - I don't understand international trade.
 
Love how Trump makes you idiots go running for squirrels while he goes about his business.
View attachment 111236

Gee! I am shocked.

Liberals unable to contribute to an adult discussion about trade deficits immediately launch a non-sequitur attack on the President.

Feeling forgotten? Feeling left out? As you should be ...
There is nothing to contribute. You don't understand trade. I could ask you about the most basic theory on trade, the theory of comparative advantage...and you wouldn't be able to detail me what that theory is without looking it up.

Just like you can't debate a 5-year old about Newtonian physics, you can't debate the uneducated in something they don't have a clue about...which, in your case, seems to be economics.
LOL - you're right. I don't understand international trade.

25 years of dealing across borders with Japan, China, and most South American countries. Founder and CEO of a company with offices in 14 countries, before I retired.

Frankly, I've spent more time in offices in foreign countries than you've spent in the real world.

But, you're right - I don't understand international trade.
The fact that you are confusing business with economics pretty much confirms that point, I'm glad that you and I both agree that you have no clue about international trade.
 
Love how Trump makes you idiots go running for squirrels while he goes about his business.
View attachment 111236

Gee! I am shocked.

Liberals unable to contribute to an adult discussion about trade deficits immediately launch a non-sequitur attack on the President.

Feeling forgotten? Feeling left out? As you should be ...
There is nothing to contribute. You don't understand trade. I could ask you about the most basic theory on trade, the theory of comparative advantage...and you wouldn't be able to detail me what that theory is without looking it up.

Just like you can't debate a 5-year old about Newtonian physics, you can't debate the uneducated in something they don't have a clue about...which, in your case, seems to be economics.
LOL - you're right. I don't understand international trade.

25 years of dealing across borders with Japan, China, and most South American countries. Founder and CEO of a company with offices in 14 countries, before I retired.

Frankly, I've spent more time in offices in foreign countries than you've spent in the real world.

But, you're right - I don't understand international trade.
The fact that you are confusing business with economics pretty much confirms that point, I'm glad that you and I both agree that you have no clue about international trade.

As you wish ...... LOL
 

Forum List

Back
Top