Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You want simple, fine. I know many people who were working three years ago that still have no job.
I don't want simple. Ed wants simple.
I want detailed, precise, accurate, comprehensive, and correct.
How old are they?
What is their marital status?
What were they doing before they got laid off?
What is their education level?
Male or female?
Where do they live?
More importantly;
What is it that they are finding to be the problem with getting hired?
What is their story?
Simplistic aggregate numbers don't tell us what is going on, only where to look.
Here we got this amazing technology, where people from across the country can tell the story. Here we have educations that would land us a management job in 1920. Here we have encyclopedias full of information that exceeds our local libraries when we were in high school. Here we have all this computing power, sitting on our laps, that would have run the entire city payroll system in the '70s. And all we get on this forum is what we can already get by going to the BLS and BEA website.
Try telling us something we don't already know.
I respect that, There is a resolving tool called the 5 whys, check it out. It helps to find a way to locate the root cause in a problem
I know WTF?
ck it out
The one number I found that pin points the problem is the % of employed to population ratio
It is the same it was in the last 12 months and maybe beyond
People leaving the work force is driving the UE # down
Ck out this link, god only knows how much info it will give you
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
To honest people there is nothing uncivil about the truth.For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
is that the civil ed?
hummm,simple, I like that.
so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?
130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?
That is just making up shit.
*shrugs* I am a simple guy, you can of course introduce a potpourri of if ands ors and here fores......it was more a simple rhetorical flourish.....
whats made up btw? economists say depending upon who you ask or site, for new entrants we need 120-145k jobs a month...
ed said we created 2.237 million jobs in 12 months...ok, fine. so aside from the 1.560 mill we require for new entrants, we are eating down the 'extra' ordinary unemployed pool by 56k a month, averaged over the last year....no?
You want simple, fine. I know many people who were working three years ago that still have no job.
I don't want simple. Someone else wanted simple. And in attempting to do so, he was making shit up.
I want detailed, precise, accurate, comprehensive, and correct.
How old are they, these many people?
What is their marital status?
So they have kids?
How are they managing?
What were they doing before they got laid off?
What is their education level?
Trade school?
House under water?
Male or female?
Where do they live?
More importantly;
What is it that they are finding to be the problem with getting hired?
What is their story?
Simplistic aggregate numbers don't tell us what is going on, only where to look.
Here we got this amazing technology, where people from across the country can tell the story. Here we have educations that would land us a management job in 1920. Here we have encyclopedias full of information that exceeds our local libraries when we were in high school. Here we have all this computing power, sitting on our laps, that would have run the entire city payroll system in the '70s. And all we get on this forum is what we can already get by going to the BLS and BEA website.
Try telling us something we don't already know.
For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.hummm,simple, I like that.
so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?
130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?
That is just making up shit.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
To honest people there is nothing uncivil about the truth.is that the civil ed?
uh huh....so you feel free to be uncivil becasue you didn't like my post.
and, you just did it again, the inference of course being, I am dishonest...tsk tsk.
Its all good though, I knew you would not be able to control yourself for long.
That is just making up shit.
*shrugs* I am a simple guy, you can of course introduce a potpourri of if ands ors and here fores......it was more a simple rhetorical flourish.....
whats made up btw? economists say depending upon who you ask or site, for new entrants we need 120-145k jobs a month...
ed said we created 2.237 million jobs in 12 months...ok, fine. so aside from the 1.560 mill we require for new entrants, we are eating down the 'extra' ordinary unemployed pool by 56k a month, averaged over the last year....no?
If you can't tell the difference between the shit your making up and actual fact, then ther isn't much I'm gonna say that will help you. It's a problem of not being able to distinguish between fantacy and reality. That's an issue you should see a psychiatrist about.
To honest people there is nothing uncivil about the truth.
uh huh....so you feel free to be uncivil becasue you didn't like my post.
and, you just did it again, the inference of course being, I am dishonest...tsk tsk.
Its all good though, I knew you would not be able to control yourself for long.
Makking up shit and lying is "being uncivil".
Pointing out that your behavior is to lie and make up shit is simply being honest.
If he wanted to be uncivil, he'd have pointed out that your an asshole. Still, while uncivil, it would still be honest. It's not his fault your a lying asshole that makes up shit.
You want simple, fine. I know many people who were working three years ago that still have no job.
I don't want simple. Someone else wanted simple. And in attempting to do so, he was making shit up.
I want detailed, precise, accurate, comprehensive, and correct.
How old are they, these many people?
What is their marital status?
So they have kids?
How are they managing?
What were they doing before they got laid off?
What is their education level?
Trade school?
House under water?
Male or female?
Where do they live?
More importantly;
What is it that they are finding to be the problem with getting hired?
What is their story?
Simplistic aggregate numbers don't tell us what is going on, only where to look.
Here we got this amazing technology, where people from across the country can tell the story. Here we have educations that would land us a management job in 1920. Here we have encyclopedias full of information that exceeds our local libraries when we were in high school. Here we have all this computing power, sitting on our laps, that would have run the entire city payroll system in the '70s. And all we get on this forum is what we can already get by going to the BLS and BEA website.
Try telling us something we don't already know.
because the gov. is running the show, you must know this.
You can ask Intel, GE etc. for data just as sophisticated and disparate and guess what? you'd get what you are looking for.
NO!hummm,simple, I like that.
so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?
130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?
That is just making up shit.
*shrugs* I am a simple guy, you can of course introduce a potpourri of if ands ors and here fores......it was more a simple rhetorical flourish.....
whats made up btw? economists say depending upon who you ask or site, for new entrants we need 120-145k jobs a month...
ed said we created 2.237 million jobs in 12 months...ok, fine. so aside from the 1.560 mill we require for new entrants, we are eating down the 'extra' ordinary unemployed pool by 56k a month, averaged over the last year....no?
I don't want simple. Someone else wanted simple. And in attempting to do so, he was making shit up.
I want detailed, precise, accurate, comprehensive, and correct.
How old are they, these many people?
What is their marital status?
So they have kids?
How are they managing?
What were they doing before they got laid off?
What is their education level?
Trade school?
House under water?
Male or female?
Where do they live?
More importantly;
What is it that they are finding to be the problem with getting hired?
What is their story?
Simplistic aggregate numbers don't tell us what is going on, only where to look.
Here we got this amazing technology, where people from across the country can tell the story. Here we have educations that would land us a management job in 1920. Here we have encyclopedias full of information that exceeds our local libraries when we were in high school. Here we have all this computing power, sitting on our laps, that would have run the entire city payroll system in the '70s. And all we get on this forum is what we can already get by going to the BLS and BEA website.
Try telling us something we don't already know.
because the gov. is running the show, you must know this.
You can ask Intel, GE etc. for data just as sophisticated and disparate and guess what? you'd get what you are looking for.
So your paranoid delusional as well. You forgot the Rothchilds, Gettys and Colonel Sanders. I hear they they too are part of the national conspiracy along with Intel, GE, the BLS and the BEA.
Now I see why you make up shit. Because in your mind,it's all just made up any ways.
NO!That is just making up shit.
*shrugs* I am a simple guy, you can of course introduce a potpourri of if ands ors and here fores......it was more a simple rhetorical flourish.....
whats made up btw? economists say depending upon who you ask or site, for new entrants we need 120-145k jobs a month...
ed said we created 2.237 million jobs in 12 months...ok, fine. so aside from the 1.560 mill we require for new entrants, we are eating down the 'extra' ordinary unemployed pool by 56k a month, averaged over the last year....no?
Again, the facts are available and the links have been posted many times, but since they do not support what you want it is simpler for you to just make the numbers up. The number of "ordinary unemployed" went down from 13,792,000 to 12,500,000 during the last 12 months, an average of 107.7k a month. As I pointed out in past posts, there is a conservative average of 100,000 jobs of retiring Boomers that get filled every month without creating a single new job.
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.That is just making up shit.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
My friend you have no room to talk as I recall you had an issue with a fox article I linked to and come to find out they were correct and you were not ( by calling them a liar)
Why is it the liberal worries about the character of those they dis agree with?
It has 0 place in a debate. facts never supporting crap? that is about a 3rd grade remark, and your smarter than that
or at least I thought you were
Again, you desperately try to double-speak your way out of your made up numbers. "My" numbers came from the BLS.NO!*shrugs* I am a simple guy, you can of course introduce a potpourri of if ands ors and here fores......it was more a simple rhetorical flourish.....
whats made up btw? economists say depending upon who you ask or site, for new entrants we need 120-145k jobs a month...
ed said we created 2.237 million jobs in 12 months...ok, fine. so aside from the 1.560 mill we require for new entrants, we are eating down the 'extra' ordinary unemployed pool by 56k a month, averaged over the last year....no?
Again, the facts are available and the links have been posted many times, but since they do not support what you want it is simpler for you to just make the numbers up. The number of "ordinary unemployed" went down from 13,792,000 to 12,500,000 during the last 12 months, an average of 107.7k a month. As I pointed out in past posts, there is a conservative average of 100,000 jobs of retiring Boomers that get filled every month without creating a single new job.
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
I made up zero, I used your number, I used the recognized variance for new entrants.
so you are saying I was off by a factor or roughly 2, not 56k but 107...ok..so that includes new entrants?
and, wait a minute didn't you say you were guessing at the retiree thiing and you never answered me as to how a job gets filled without employing someone there-by, taking the number down.. remember?
*shrugs* I am a simple guy, you can of course introduce a potpourri of if ands ors and here fores......it was more a simple rhetorical flourish.....
whats made up btw? economists say depending upon who you ask or site, for new entrants we need 120-145k jobs a month...
ed said we created 2.237 million jobs in 12 months...ok, fine. so aside from the 1.560 mill we require for new entrants, we are eating down the 'extra' ordinary unemployed pool by 56k a month, averaged over the last year....no?
If you can't tell the difference between the shit your making up and actual fact, then ther isn't much I'm gonna say that will help you. It's a problem of not being able to distinguish between fantacy and reality. That's an issue you should see a psychiatrist about.
there must be a hundred things you could have said, like what I made up and why its off kilter? I am sure it is, but, apparently I am not as deeply invested in this as you appear to be, ... alas, I guess you're unable to back and forth in a civil manner either. to bad.
That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
My friend you have no room to talk as I recall you had an issue with a fox article I linked to and come to find out they were correct and you were not ( by calling them a liar)
Why is it the liberal worries about the character of those they dis agree with?
It has 0 place in a debate. facts never supporting crap? that is about a 3rd grade remark, and your smarter than that
or at least I thought you were
That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
My friend you have no room to talk as I recall you had an issue with a fox article I linked to and come to find out they were correct and you were not ( by calling them a liar)
Why is it the liberal worries about the character of those they dis agree with?
It has 0 place in a debate. facts never supporting crap? that is about a 3rd grade remark, and your smarter than that
or at least I thought you were
Again, you desperately try to double-speak your way out of your made up numbers. "My" numbers came from the BLS.NO!
Again, the facts are available and the links have been posted many times, but since they do not support what you want it is simpler for you to just make the numbers up. The number of "ordinary unemployed" went down from 13,792,000 to 12,500,000 during the last 12 months, an average of 107.7k a month. As I pointed out in past posts, there is a conservative average of 100,000 jobs of retiring Boomers that get filled every month without creating a single new job.
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
I made up zero, I used your number, I used the recognized variance for new entrants.
so you are saying I was off by a factor or roughly 2, not 56k but 107...ok..so that includes new entrants?
and, wait a minute didn't you say you were guessing at the retiree thiing and you never answered me as to how a job gets filled without employing someone there-by, taking the number down.. remember?
The number of employed increased by 2.237 million and the number of unemployed decreased by 1.292 million so no matter how you slice it there are a lot more than just 56k jobs per month being filled over and above the new workers entering the workforce and therefore the UE rate should go down no matter how many people are not in the labor force.
If you can't tell the difference between the shit your making up and actual fact, then ther isn't much I'm gonna say that will help you. It's a problem of not being able to distinguish between fantacy and reality. That's an issue you should see a psychiatrist about.
there must be a hundred things you could have said, like what I made up and why its off kilter? I am sure it is, but, apparently I am not as deeply invested in this as you appear to be, ... alas, I guess you're unable to back and forth in a civil manner either. to bad.
I could, but why?
