Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June
Read more at Record 93 626 000 Americans not in labor force

what the hell is this ? i thought the liberliars said the labor force was at an all time high ???

color me puzzled :up:

Of course, you do have to break it down. That number includes everyone over the age of 15. Kids between 16 and 18 are going to have pretty high unemployment, since they are mostly in school.
Unemployment? We're talking about not in the labor force...unemployed is in the labor force.



That's about 8.3 million. Then you have people over 65, the retirees. That about 45 million. So the total number comes down to around 40.3 million, which includes people under 25 (another high unemployment areas), the disabled, stay at home moms, etc. A single number really doesn't mean a hell of a lot.
Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex age and disability status not seasonally adjusted
Disabled age 16+ Not in the Labor Force: 24,138,000
Age 65+ no disability Not in the Labor Force 24,633,000

A-16. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 to 24 years of age by school enrollment age sex race Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and educational attainment
High School students Not in the Labor force: 5,336,000
Full time college students (age 16-24) Not in the Labor Force: 3,468,000

Those are the only numbers readily available.So you were close.
 
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.
Why do you keep repeating something I am not arguing against? You are refusing to answer my question. You seem to be inferring some meaning out of the law that has never been made by anyone else.
Equal application of the law?
No, the idea of paying people who don't want to work.
Is that your Only excuse for the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws?
In what way do you think I'm bearing false witness?
Employment is at the will of either party; there is no authority under any sovereign State to be repugnant to that federal Doctrine in American law.
 
Why do you keep repeating something I am not arguing against? You are refusing to answer my question. You seem to be inferring some meaning out of the law that has never been made by anyone else.
Equal application of the law?
No, the idea of paying people who don't want to work.
Is that your Only excuse for the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws?
In what way do you think I'm bearing false witness?
Employment is at the will of either party; there is no authority under any sovereign State to be repugnant to that federal Doctrine in American law.
Sure there is. At will employment is a common law assumption. The states are perfectly free to change that. Most states have exceptions to pure at will employment:

But again, we were talking about your idea of unemployment compensation for voluntary unemployment.
 
Equal application of the law?
No, the idea of paying people who don't want to work.
Is that your Only excuse for the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws?
In what way do you think I'm bearing false witness?
Employment is at the will of either party; there is no authority under any sovereign State to be repugnant to that federal Doctrine in American law.
Sure there is. At will employment is a common law assumption. The states are perfectly free to change that. Most states have exceptions to pure at will employment:

But again, we were talking about your idea of unemployment compensation for voluntary unemployment.
dude, where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

I cited a Labor Code.
 
I only seem ambiguous if you don't have a clue or a Cause; otherwise, there is no ambiguity in my strings of words.

I have stated over two hundred and fifty times, what, exactly, I mean by my strings of words regarding that specific topic.

There is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Why not start there to ameliorate your ignorance of the law.
Riiiight ... you've been so clear with your point which you say you have stated over 250 times, yet the first time you said anything about employment compensation was in post #399.

Up until then, you were trying to tie the poverty level to minimum wage.

Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder no one else did either.
 
I only seem ambiguous if you don't have a clue or a Cause; otherwise, there is no ambiguity in my strings of words.

I have stated over two hundred and fifty times, what, exactly, I mean by my strings of words regarding that specific topic.

There is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Why not start there to ameliorate your ignorance of the law.
Riiiight ... you've been so clear with your point which you say you have stated over 250 times, yet the first time you said anything about employment compensation was in post #399.

Up until then, you were trying to tie the poverty level to minimum wage.

Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder no one else did either.
Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.
 
I only seem ambiguous if you don't have a clue or a Cause; otherwise, there is no ambiguity in my strings of words.

I have stated over two hundred and fifty times, what, exactly, I mean by my strings of words regarding that specific topic.

There is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Why not start there to ameliorate your ignorance of the law.
Riiiight ... you've been so clear with your point which you say you have stated over 250 times, yet the first time you said anything about employment compensation was in post #399.

Up until then, you were trying to tie the poverty level to minimum wage.

Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder no one else did either.
Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.
Well, then why don't you link to someone who shares your views and maybe we'll understand them better. But I don't think anyone else shares your views or uses terms the same way you do.
 
I only seem ambiguous if you don't have a clue or a Cause; otherwise, there is no ambiguity in my strings of words.

I have stated over two hundred and fifty times, what, exactly, I mean by my strings of words regarding that specific topic.

There is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Why not start there to ameliorate your ignorance of the law.
Riiiight ... you've been so clear with your point which you say you have stated over 250 times, yet the first time you said anything about employment compensation was in post #399.

Up until then, you were trying to tie the poverty level to minimum wage.

Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder no one else did either.
Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.
Well, then why don't you link to someone who shares your views and maybe we'll understand them better. But I don't think anyone else shares your views or uses terms the same way you do.
Dude, I don't have to appeal to the masses when I don't resort to fallacies.
 
I only seem ambiguous if you don't have a clue or a Cause; otherwise, there is no ambiguity in my strings of words.

I have stated over two hundred and fifty times, what, exactly, I mean by my strings of words regarding that specific topic.

There is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Why not start there to ameliorate your ignorance of the law.
Riiiight ... you've been so clear with your point which you say you have stated over 250 times, yet the first time you said anything about employment compensation was in post #399.

Up until then, you were trying to tie the poverty level to minimum wage.

Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder no one else did either.
Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.
Well, then why don't you link to someone who shares your views and maybe we'll understand them better. But I don't think anyone else shares your views or uses terms the same way you do.
Dude, I don't have to appeal to the masses when I don't resort to fallacies.
Who was asking you to appeal to the masses? YOUR POSTS AND MEANINGS ARE NOT CLEAR TO ANYONE. AT ALL! But you insist that the problem is not with you, but with us. That's a little arrogant. And not particularly intelligent. So either make an attempt to explain the details of the system you are proposing, or direct us to someone who can, or stop wasting your time.
 
No. They merely are not clear to those of your point of view. Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.

Why does your side have a problem with a form of minimum wage that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost, on an at-will basis?
 
Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

That's because corporate business is making such monstrous profits, it doesn't have to create another 93 million jobs. If corporations had to pay taxes, their profit margins would be smaller and would have to hire more workers to make up for smaller profits. As long as corporations are given a free ride, this will continue. The rich created the national debt, and I guarantee, that eventually they will have to pay it off, because they have the money, not the peasants.
Corporation taxes would be passed on to the consumers in higher prices. Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES!
 
Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

That's because corporate business is making such monstrous profits, it doesn't have to create another 93 million jobs. If corporations had to pay taxes, their profit margins would be smaller and would have to hire more workers to make up for smaller profits. As long as corporations are given a free ride, this will continue. The rich created the national debt, and I guarantee, that eventually they will have to pay it off, because they have the money, not the peasants.
Corporation taxes would be passed on to the consumers in higher prices. Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES!
I believe unemployment compensation taxes should be general taxes on Firms instead of our current regime.
 
I only seem ambiguous if you don't have a clue or a Cause; otherwise, there is no ambiguity in my strings of words.

I have stated over two hundred and fifty times, what, exactly, I mean by my strings of words regarding that specific topic.

There is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Why not start there to ameliorate your ignorance of the law.
Riiiight ... you've been so clear with your point which you say you have stated over 250 times, yet the first time you said anything about employment compensation was in post #399.

Up until then, you were trying to tie the poverty level to minimum wage.

Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder no one else did either.
Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.
I can only go by what you said and up until post #399, your argument was about minimum wage. Now it's about unemployment compensation. Who knows why you pulled a bait and switch?

As far as "my side" lacking a work ethic, where's your proof? The only people I know who are capable of working but choosing not to are on your side.
 
Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

That's because corporate business is making such monstrous profits, it doesn't have to create another 93 million jobs. If corporations had to pay taxes, their profit margins would be smaller and would have to hire more workers to make up for smaller profits. As long as corporations are given a free ride, this will continue. The rich created the national debt, and I guarantee, that eventually they will have to pay it off, because they have the money, not the peasants.
Corporation taxes would be passed on to the consumers in higher prices. Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES!
I believe unemployment compensation taxes should be general taxes on Firms instead of our current regime.
In order for any firm to make a profit, all of its costs, including taxes...must be passed on to the consumers.
 
I only seem ambiguous if you don't have a clue or a Cause; otherwise, there is no ambiguity in my strings of words.

I have stated over two hundred and fifty times, what, exactly, I mean by my strings of words regarding that specific topic.

There is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Why not start there to ameliorate your ignorance of the law.
Riiiight ... you've been so clear with your point which you say you have stated over 250 times, yet the first time you said anything about employment compensation was in post #399.

Up until then, you were trying to tie the poverty level to minimum wage.

Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder no one else did either.
Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.
I can only go by what you said and up until post #399, your argument was about minimum wage. Now it's about unemployment compensation. Who knows why you pulled a bait and switch?

As far as "my side" lacking a work ethic, where's your proof? The only people I know who are capable of working but choosing not to are on your side.
Any more non sequiturs to prove you don't have a clue or a Cause?

No. They merely are not clear to those of your point of view. Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.

Why does your side have a problem with a form of minimum wage that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost, on an at-will basis?
 
No. They merely are not clear to those of your point of view. Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.

Why does your side have a problem with a form of minimum wage that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost, on an at-will basis?
What side do you think I am? I have no idea what form or minimum wage you think can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis.
Let me put some modifiers in your statement.

a form of minimum wage (undefined and unstated form) that can solve (undefined conditions) simple poverty (undefined term) and a natural rate of unemployment (unknown what "solving" a natural rate of povery could mean), at that rock bottom cost (undefined term and undefined mechanics), on an at-will basis (unclear what is at-will and how that has any relevance to minimum wage, poverty, or unemployment)

So please define the following:
"a form of minimum wage." What is the form, what are the terms and conditions, and what is the proposed wage?
"solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment:" Please define "simple poverty" and what goals or conditions would be recognized as solving simple poverty and natural rate of unemployment.
"on an at will basis" define term IN THIS CONTEXT and explain how it relates.
 
No. They merely are not clear to those of your point of view. Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.

Why does your side have a problem with a form of minimum wage that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost, on an at-will basis?
What side do you think I am? I have no idea what form or minimum wage you think can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis.
Let me put some modifiers in your statement.

a form of minimum wage (undefined and unstated form) that can solve (undefined conditions) simple poverty (undefined term) and a natural rate of unemployment (unknown what "solving" a natural rate of povery could mean), at that rock bottom cost (undefined term and undefined mechanics), on an at-will basis (unclear what is at-will and how that has any relevance to minimum wage, poverty, or unemployment)

So please define the following:
"a form of minimum wage." What is the form, what are the terms and conditions, and what is the proposed wage?
"solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment:" Please define "simple poverty" and what goals or conditions would be recognized as solving simple poverty and natural rate of unemployment.
"on an at will basis" define term IN THIS CONTEXT and explain how it relates.
You claimed you understood the concept of employment at will. Are you now recanting that claim?

Why do you have a problem with a form of minimum wage that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost, on an at-will basis?

What part of at-will basis regarding unemployment compensation that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost; is soo difficult to understand.
 
No. They merely are not clear to those of your point of view. Dude, it isn't my fault your side lacks a work ethic regarding reading comprehension.

Why does your side have a problem with a form of minimum wage that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost, on an at-will basis?
What side do you think I am? I have no idea what form or minimum wage you think can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis.
Let me put some modifiers in your statement.

a form of minimum wage (undefined and unstated form) that can solve (undefined conditions) simple poverty (undefined term) and a natural rate of unemployment (unknown what "solving" a natural rate of povery could mean), at that rock bottom cost (undefined term and undefined mechanics), on an at-will basis (unclear what is at-will and how that has any relevance to minimum wage, poverty, or unemployment)

So please define the following:
"a form of minimum wage." What is the form, what are the terms and conditions, and what is the proposed wage?
"solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment:" Please define "simple poverty" and what goals or conditions would be recognized as solving simple poverty and natural rate of unemployment.
"on an at will basis" define term IN THIS CONTEXT and explain how it relates.
You claimed you understood the concept of employment at will. Are you now recanting that claim?
Nope, I understand what it means. I don't understand what you think it has to do with minimum wage,poverty, or unemployment.

Why do you have a problem with a form of minimum wage that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost, on an at-will basis?
I don't know if I have a problem with that or not because you haven't actually described what you're talking about in any detail.

What part of at-will basis regarding unemployment compensation that can solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, at that rock bottom cost; is soo difficult to understand.
What you mean by "at-will basis regarding unemployment compensation." is one part I don't understand.
What you mean by solving simple poverty (I need definition of simple poverty and conditions that would mean it and/or natural rate of unemployment is solved) is another part.

Is it so hard for you to describe your system? What would a person experience. No "it has to do with." Tell me what actually would happen.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top