I Decree

[IlarMeilyr]

Meanwhile, the simpering whining braying noises from desi te not withstanding, the FACT remains that the clearly biased handmaiden liberal media breathlessly reports the Administration's "unemployment" figures as though they had any particular meaning.

They really don't.

So having failed to achieve the goal of your OP because the U6 data has been around since 1967 you are switching targets to bash the media instead? If you look carefully you will discover that while the superficial media only report the single statistic the media pundits will drill down into the underlying U6 numbers and discuss their merits since they give a better indication of the true strength of the economy.

Now you may believe that a pissing contest is going to make you the "winner" in this thread but it won't. You started the OP based upon a fallacy and that has been exposed by the actual factual data. If you really want to deflect to the media and derail your own thread that is entirely up to you.

It's unclear if you miss the point by accident or deliberately. It hardly matters.

The thread addresses a fact which you can try (futilely) to deflect but that won't change it.

The Obumbler sycophants (including, of course, his handmaiden water-carrying liberal media buddies) breathlessly pronounce the "success" of his disastrous Administration's policies by parroting the faked-up "unemployment" "figures."

They cannot do much about the use of bogus numbers in the past. The past being the past and all. But they COULD make SOME note of the BASIS for his fraudulent present day "figures." AND, as I already noted (at the very outset, your braying notwithstanding), they should also then do a FAIR and accurate COMPARISON with prior Administrations by noting the same (more or less REAL) figures for prior Administrations.

And since I DID suggest as much in the OP, your present braying is pretty dishonest of you. How non-surprising.

But you appear to be one of the quivering sycophants, so I wouldn't expect integrity from you. Now hurry back with more of your dishonest efforts at deflection. Be a good little bitch. But that's ok. It won't detract from the point. Your pathetic efforts in that vein remain futile.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor Liability -- still heavy with posts in anger

 

[Derideo_Te]

Meanwhile, the simpering whining braying noises from desi te not withstanding, the FACT remains that the clearly biased handmaiden liberal media breathlessly reports the Administration's "unemployment" figures as though they had any particular meaning.

They really don't.

So having failed to achieve the goal of your OP because the U6 data has been around since 1967 you are switching targets to bash the media instead? If you look carefully you will discover that while the superficial media only report the single statistic the media pundits will drill down into the underlying U6 numbers and discuss their merits since they give a better indication of the true strength of the economy.

Now you may believe that a pissing contest is going to make you the "winner" in this thread but it won't. You started the OP based upon a fallacy and that has been exposed by the actual factual data. If you really want to deflect to the media and derail your own thread that is entirely up to you.

It's unclear if you miss the point by accident or deliberately. It hardly matters.

The thread addresses a fact which you can try (futilely) to deflect but that won't change it.

The Obumbler sycophants (including, of course, his handmaiden water-carrying liberal media buddies) breathlessly pronounce the "success" of his disastrous Administration's policies by parroting the faked-up "unemployment" "figures."

They cannot do much about the use of bogus numbers in the past. The past being the past and all. But they COULD make SOME note of the BASIS for his fraudulent present day "figures." AND, as I already noted (at the very outset, your braying notwithstanding), they should also then do a FAIR and accurate COMPARISON with prior Administrations by noting the same (more or less REAL) figures for prior Administrations.

And since I DID suggest as much in the OP, your present braying is pretty dishonest of you. How non-surprising.

But you appear to be one of the quivering sycophants, so I wouldn't expect integrity from you. Now hurry back with more of your dishonest efforts at deflection. Be a good little bitch. But that's ok. It won't detract from the point. Your pathetic efforts in that vein remain futile.

Way too heavy on the sarcasm to hide your lack of substance, Ilar.

The hard facts are that unemployment, by any measure, is still down and a comparison against the prior administration would only reflect well on Obama's track record of job creation.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Meanwhile, the simpering whining braying noises from desi te not withstanding, the FACT remains that the clearly biased handmaiden liberal media breathlessly reports the Administration's "unemployment" figures as though they had any particular meaning.

They really don't.

So having failed to achieve the goal of your OP because the U6 data has been around since 1967 you are switching targets to bash the media instead? If you look carefully you will discover that while the superficial media only report the single statistic the media pundits will drill down into the underlying U6 numbers and discuss their merits since they give a better indication of the true strength of the economy.

Now you may believe that a pissing contest is going to make you the "winner" in this thread but it won't. You started the OP based upon a fallacy and that has been exposed by the actual factual data. If you really want to deflect to the media and derail your own thread that is entirely up to you.

It's unclear if you miss the point by accident or deliberately. It hardly matters.

The thread addresses a fact which you can try (futilely) to deflect but that won't change it.

The Obumbler sycophants (including, of course, his handmaiden water-carrying liberal media buddies) breathlessly pronounce the "success" of his disastrous Administration's policies by parroting the faked-up "unemployment" "figures."

They cannot do much about the use of bogus numbers in the past. The past being the past and all. But they COULD make SOME note of the BASIS for his fraudulent present day "figures." AND, as I already noted (at the very outset, your braying notwithstanding), they should also then do a FAIR and accurate COMPARISON with prior Administrations by noting the same (more or less REAL) figures for prior Administrations.

And since I DID suggest as much in the OP, your present braying is pretty dishonest of you. How non-surprising.

But you appear to be one of the quivering sycophants, so I wouldn't expect integrity from you. Now hurry back with more of your dishonest efforts at deflection. Be a good little bitch. But that's ok. It won't detract from the point. Your pathetic efforts in that vein remain futile.

Way too heavy on the sarcasm to hide your lack of substance, Ilar.

The hard facts are that unemployment, by any measure, is still down and a comparison against the prior administration would only reflect well on Obama's track record of job creation.

By any measure? LOL

Such nonsense you post.

Try reality someday dizzy. The hard fact is that unemployment is only "down" if you agree not to count all who have simply given up even looking.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Meanwhile, the simpering whining braying noises from desi te not withstanding, the FACT remains that the clearly biased handmaiden liberal media breathlessly reports the Administration's "unemployment" figures as though they had any particular meaning.

They really don't.

So having failed to achieve the goal of your OP because the U6 data has been around since 1967 you are switching targets to bash the media instead? If you look carefully you will discover that while the superficial media only report the single statistic the media pundits will drill down into the underlying U6 numbers and discuss their merits since they give a better indication of the true strength of the economy.

Now you may believe that a pissing contest is going to make you the "winner" in this thread but it won't. You started the OP based upon a fallacy and that has been exposed by the actual factual data. If you really want to deflect to the media and derail your own thread that is entirely up to you.

It's unclear if you miss the point by accident or deliberately. It hardly matters.

The thread addresses a fact which you can try (futilely) to deflect but that won't change it.

The Obumbler sycophants (including, of course, his handmaiden water-carrying liberal media buddies) breathlessly pronounce the "success" of his disastrous Administration's policies by parroting the faked-up "unemployment" "figures."

They cannot do much about the use of bogus numbers in the past. The past being the past and all. But they COULD make SOME note of the BASIS for his fraudulent present day "figures." AND, as I already noted (at the very outset, your braying notwithstanding), they should also then do a FAIR and accurate COMPARISON with prior Administrations by noting the same (more or less REAL) figures for prior Administrations.

And since I DID suggest as much in the OP, your present braying is pretty dishonest of you. How non-surprising.

But you appear to be one of the quivering sycophants, so I wouldn't expect integrity from you. Now hurry back with more of your dishonest efforts at deflection. Be a good little bitch. But that's ok. It won't detract from the point. Your pathetic efforts in that vein remain futile.

Way too heavy on the sarcasm to hide your lack of substance, Ilar.

The hard facts are that unemployment, by any measure, is still down and a comparison against the prior administration would only reflect well on Obama's track record of job creation.

By any measure? LOL

Such nonsense you post.

Try reality someday dizzy. The hard fact is that unemployment is only "down" if you agree not to count all who have simply given up even looking.

How many boomers reach retirement age each day? Estimates vary between 10k and 11k. That is around 4 million per year leaving the workforce.

Have you factored them into those who have "simply given up even looking"?

Or is that just another stick to use to beat Obama with?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Meanwhile, the simpering whining braying noises from desi te not withstanding, the FACT remains that the clearly biased handmaiden liberal media breathlessly reports the Administration's "unemployment" figures as though they had any particular meaning.

They really don't.

So having failed to achieve the goal of your OP because the U6 data has been around since 1967 you are switching targets to bash the media instead? If you look carefully you will discover that while the superficial media only report the single statistic the media pundits will drill down into the underlying U6 numbers and discuss their merits since they give a better indication of the true strength of the economy.

Now you may believe that a pissing contest is going to make you the "winner" in this thread but it won't. You started the OP based upon a fallacy and that has been exposed by the actual factual data. If you really want to deflect to the media and derail your own thread that is entirely up to you.

It's unclear if you miss the point by accident or deliberately. It hardly matters.

The thread addresses a fact which you can try (futilely) to deflect but that won't change it.

The Obumbler sycophants (including, of course, his handmaiden water-carrying liberal media buddies) breathlessly pronounce the "success" of his disastrous Administration's policies by parroting the faked-up "unemployment" "figures."

They cannot do much about the use of bogus numbers in the past. The past being the past and all. But they COULD make SOME note of the BASIS for his fraudulent present day "figures." AND, as I already noted (at the very outset, your braying notwithstanding), they should also then do a FAIR and accurate COMPARISON with prior Administrations by noting the same (more or less REAL) figures for prior Administrations.

And since I DID suggest as much in the OP, your present braying is pretty dishonest of you. How non-surprising.

But you appear to be one of the quivering sycophants, so I wouldn't expect integrity from you. Now hurry back with more of your dishonest efforts at deflection. Be a good little bitch. But that's ok. It won't detract from the point. Your pathetic efforts in that vein remain futile.

Way too heavy on the sarcasm to hide your lack of substance, Ilar.

The hard facts are that unemployment, by any measure, is still down and a comparison against the prior administration would only reflect well on Obama's track record of job creation.

By any measure? LOL

Such nonsense you post.

Try reality someday dizzy. The hard fact is that unemployment is only "down" if you agree not to count all who have simply given up even looking.

How many boomers reach retirement age each day? Estimates vary between 10k and 11k. That is around 4 million per year leaving the workforce.

Have you factored them into those who have "simply given up even looking"?

Or is that just another stick to use to beat Obama with?

Oh cut the bullshit already. Gawd. You long to suck Obumbler's dick and tickle his asshole with your tongue; and you worry about whether all I'm doing is trying to "stick" it to the poor sot?

How many individuals of work age are there in this nation? How many of them HAVE full time jobs? (I don't even care if it's bullshit "service industry" lower tier jobs.)

Of all that are left, how many are still TRYING to get jobs? And how many of them have fuckin' just given up?

Figures lie and liars figure. The Administration's pencil pushers (and the so-called 'reporters' who just regurgitate the government's line) are full of crap, too. But I'd bet with a bit of digging even you could come up with some roughly valid and mutually acceptable numbers to fill in those variables.

In the meanwhile, the U6 figures (however accurate or inaccurately based they might be) are a better indication of how the nation's economy is doing than the nearly fantasy numbers that routinely get "reported."

 

[B. Kidd]

Obie will be saying that our new found prosperity will continue uninterrupted and Obiebots will be jizzing incessantly over it.

I'm going long on tissue, bitchez...........

 

[Derideo_Te]

So having failed to achieve the goal of your OP because the U6 data has been around since 1967 you are switching targets to bash the media instead? If you look carefully you will discover that while the superficial media only report the single statistic the media pundits will drill down into the underlying U6 numbers and discuss their merits since they give a better indication of the true strength of the economy.

Now you may believe that a pissing contest is going to make you the "winner" in this thread but it won't. You started the OP based upon a fallacy and that has been exposed by the actual factual data. If you really want to deflect to the media and derail your own thread that is entirely up to you.

It's unclear if you miss the point by accident or deliberately. It hardly matters.

The thread addresses a fact which you can try (futilely) to deflect but that won't change it.

The Obumbler sycophants (including, of course, his handmaiden water-carrying liberal media buddies) breathlessly pronounce the "success" of his disastrous Administration's policies by parroting the faked-up "unemployment" "figures."

They cannot do much about the use of bogus numbers in the past. The past being the past and all. But they COULD make SOME note of the BASIS for his fraudulent present day "figures." AND, as I already noted (at the very outset, your braying notwithstanding), they should also then do a FAIR and accurate COMPARISON with prior Administrations by noting the same (more or less REAL) figures for prior Administrations.

And since I DID suggest as much in the OP, your present braying is pretty dishonest of you. How non-surprising.

But you appear to be one of the quivering sycophants, so I wouldn't expect integrity from you. Now hurry back with more of your dishonest efforts at deflection. Be a good little bitch. But that's ok. It won't detract from the point. Your pathetic efforts in that vein remain futile.

Way too heavy on the sarcasm to hide your lack of substance, Ilar.

The hard facts are that unemployment, by any measure, is still down and a comparison against the prior administration would only reflect well on Obama's track record of job creation.

By any measure? LOL

Such nonsense you post.

Try reality someday dizzy. The hard fact is that unemployment is only "down" if you agree not to count all who have simply given up even looking.

How many boomers reach retirement age each day? Estimates vary between 10k and 11k. That is around 4 million per year leaving the workforce.

Have you factored them into those who have "simply given up even looking"?

Or is that just another stick to use to beat Obama with?

Oh cut the bullshit already. Gawd. You long to suck Obumbler's dick and tickle his asshole with your tongue; and you worry about whether all I'm doing is trying to "stick" it to the poor sot?

How many individuals of work age are there in this nation? How many of them HAVE full time jobs? (I don't even care if it's bullshit "service industry" lower tier jobs.)

Of all that are left, how many are still TRYING to get jobs? And how many of them have fuckin' just given up?

Figures lie and liars figure. The Administration's pencil pushers (and the so-called 'reporters' who just regurgitate the government's line) are full of crap, too. But I'd bet with a bit of digging even you could come up with some roughly valid and mutually acceptable numbers to fill in those variables.

In the meanwhile, the U6 figures (however accurate or inaccurately based they might be) are a better indication of how the nation's economy is doing than the nearly fantasy numbers that routinely get "reported."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's unclear if you miss the point by accident or deliberately. It hardly matters.

The thread addresses a fact which you can try (futilely) to deflect but that won't change it.

The Obumbler sycophants (including, of course, his handmaiden water-carrying liberal media buddies) breathlessly pronounce the "success" of his disastrous Administration's policies by parroting the faked-up "unemployment" "figures."

They cannot do much about the use of bogus numbers in the past. The past being the past and all. But they COULD make SOME note of the BASIS for his fraudulent present day "figures." AND, as I already noted (at the very outset, your braying notwithstanding), they should also then do a FAIR and accurate COMPARISON with prior Administrations by noting the same (more or less REAL) figures for prior Administrations.

And since I DID suggest as much in the OP, your present braying is pretty dishonest of you. How non-surprising.

But you appear to be one of the quivering sycophants, so I wouldn't expect integrity from you. Now hurry back with more of your dishonest efforts at deflection. Be a good little bitch. But that's ok. It won't detract from the point. Your pathetic efforts in that vein remain futile.

Way too heavy on the sarcasm to hide your lack of substance, Ilar.

The hard facts are that unemployment, by any measure, is still down and a comparison against the prior administration would only reflect well on Obama's track record of job creation.

By any measure? LOL

Such nonsense you post.

Try reality someday dizzy. The hard fact is that unemployment is only "down" if you agree not to count all who have simply given up even looking.

How many boomers reach retirement age each day? Estimates vary between 10k and 11k. That is around 4 million per year leaving the workforce.

Have you factored them into those who have "simply given up even looking"?

Or is that just another stick to use to beat Obama with?

Oh cut the bullshit already. Gawd. You long to suck Obumbler's dick and tickle his asshole with your tongue; and you worry about whether all I'm doing is trying to "stick" it to the poor sot?

How many individuals of work age are there in this nation? How many of them HAVE full time jobs? (I don't even care if it's bullshit "service industry" lower tier jobs.)

Of all that are left, how many are still TRYING to get jobs? And how many of them have fuckin' just given up?

Figures lie and liars figure. The Administration's pencil pushers (and the so-called 'reporters' who just regurgitate the government's line) are full of crap, too. But I'd bet with a bit of digging even you could come up with some roughly valid and mutually acceptable numbers to fill in those variables.

In the meanwhile, the U6 figures (however accurate or inaccurately based they might be) are a better indication of how the nation's economy is doing than the nearly fantasy numbers that routinely get "reported."

It would have been easier of you, and honest of you and even more concise of you if you had simply acknowledged the truth of what I had posted. But I don't expect much honesty from your kind, laughing boi.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers most often quoted by the lap-dog liberal media.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Way too heavy on the sarcasm to hide your lack of substance, Ilar.

The hard facts are that unemployment, by any measure, is still down and a comparison against the prior administration would only reflect well on Obama's track record of job creation.

By any measure? LOL

Such nonsense you post.

Try reality someday dizzy. The hard fact is that unemployment is only "down" if you agree not to count all who have simply given up even looking.

How many boomers reach retirement age each day? Estimates vary between 10k and 11k. That is around 4 million per year leaving the workforce.

Have you factored them into those who have "simply given up even looking"?

Or is that just another stick to use to beat Obama with?

Oh cut the bullshit already. Gawd. You long to suck Obumbler's dick and tickle his asshole with your tongue; and you worry about whether all I'm doing is trying to "stick" it to the poor sot?

How many individuals of work age are there in this nation? How many of them HAVE full time jobs? (I don't even care if it's bullshit "service industry" lower tier jobs.)

Of all that are left, how many are still TRYING to get jobs? And how many of them have fuckin' just given up?

Figures lie and liars figure. The Administration's pencil pushers (and the so-called 'reporters' who just regurgitate the government's line) are full of crap, too. But I'd bet with a bit of digging even you could come up with some roughly valid and mutually acceptable numbers to fill in those variables.

In the meanwhile, the U6 figures (however accurate or inaccurately based they might be) are a better indication of how the nation's economy is doing than the nearly fantasy numbers that routinely get "reported."

It would have been easier of you, and honest of you and even more concise of you if you had simply acknowledged the truth of what I had posted. But I don't expect much honesty from your kind, laughing boi.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers most often quoted by the lap-dog liberal media.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers

Onus is on you to prove your claim. Don't make me use the Jeopardy theme again.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I Decree that 2014 generally sucked.

Mercifully, even bad years eventually come to an end. So too, 2014 is drawing to a close.

Accordingly, with high hopes that it may get good again someday, I applaud the passing of 2014 and wish -- for one and all -- a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.

Furthermore, to assess prosperity, I decree further that we should avoid using the Administration's phonied-up economic numbers. When we discuss "unemployment" for example, we should use numbers that show not just those who are looking for jobs but can't get work, but also those who have even given up looking. All past numbers should be adjusted to reflect this true nature of unemployment rates so we can have a coherent discussion about the comparisons between liberal-led periods and the slightly less liberal-led periods.

And may Al Sharpton gain a pound and get a non-joke haircut.

Threads by angry misfits are always amusing. Angry at others, angry at the world, angry, angry, angry...

thank you

And as always, blaming the left and a black guy instead of taking responsibility for his own life.

I had a great year and 2015 will be even better.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I Decree that 2014 generally sucked.

Mercifully, even bad years eventually come to an end. So too, 2014 is drawing to a close.

Accordingly, with high hopes that it may get good again someday, I applaud the passing of 2014 and wish -- for one and all -- a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.

Furthermore, to assess prosperity, I decree further that we should avoid using the Administration's phonied-up economic numbers. When we discuss "unemployment" for example, we should use numbers that show not just those who are looking for jobs but can't get work, but also those who have even given up looking. All past numbers should be adjusted to reflect this true nature of unemployment rates so we can have a coherent discussion about the comparisons between liberal-led periods and the slightly less liberal-led periods.

And may Al Sharpton gain a pound and get a non-joke haircut.

Threads by angry misfits are always amusing. Angry at others, angry at the world, angry, angry, angry...

thank you

And as always, blaming the left and a black guy instead of taking responsibility for his own life.

I had a great year and 2015 will be even better.

Liability (aka IlarMeilyr ) has always been a tool

 

[Ravi]

Poor Liarbility. He still hasn't gained back his confidence from welshing uncontrollably.

Prolly the source of his depression.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Poor Liarbility. He still hasn't gained back his confidence from welshing uncontrollably.

Prolly the source of his depression.

anger and depression? I do hope he doesn't have any firearms

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since we cannot win against the economy right now, "I decree further that we should avoid using the Administration's phonied-up economic numbers" and instead we hard core right wankers make up our own phonied-up numbers.

 

[HenryBHough]

Not satisfied to pose as a Republican, Jammie-Jake pushes the envelope by claiming to be right-wing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Not satisfied to pose as a Republican, Jammie-Jake pushes the envelope by claiming to be right-wing.

lol

Fakey couldn't convince anyone of anything. He is FAR too obviously a poseur, a liar, a far left wingnut liberal, and a generally odious troll piece of worthless shit.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The depraved laughable lolberals pretend that if THEY had a good or a great year (allegedly), then therefore the Obumbler Administration has done a good job. Those silly lolberals are stupid unpersuasive cockbites.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

By any measure? LOL

Such nonsense you post.

Try reality someday dizzy. The hard fact is that unemployment is only "down" if you agree not to count all who have simply given up even looking.

How many boomers reach retirement age each day? Estimates vary between 10k and 11k. That is around 4 million per year leaving the workforce.

Have you factored them into those who have "simply given up even looking"?

Or is that just another stick to use to beat Obama with?

Oh cut the bullshit already. Gawd. You long to suck Obumbler's dick and tickle his asshole with your tongue; and you worry about whether all I'm doing is trying to "stick" it to the poor sot?

How many individuals of work age are there in this nation? How many of them HAVE full time jobs? (I don't even care if it's bullshit "service industry" lower tier jobs.)

Of all that are left, how many are still TRYING to get jobs? And how many of them have fuckin' just given up?

Figures lie and liars figure. The Administration's pencil pushers (and the so-called 'reporters' who just regurgitate the government's line) are full of crap, too. But I'd bet with a bit of digging even you could come up with some roughly valid and mutually acceptable numbers to fill in those variables.

In the meanwhile, the U6 figures (however accurate or inaccurately based they might be) are a better indication of how the nation's economy is doing than the nearly fantasy numbers that routinely get "reported."

It would have been easier of you, and honest of you and even more concise of you if you had simply acknowledged the truth of what I had posted. But I don't expect much honesty from your kind, laughing boi.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers most often quoted by the lap-dog liberal media.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers

Onus is on you to prove your claim. Don't make me use the Jeopardy theme again.

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.