Record 93 million Americans not working

[Freewill]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Freewill]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

What is the series ID? You can't link a BLS search that you've performed.

i am trying again, this is why I didn't post the 15 years in the first place it wouldn't come up but that didn't stop someone from inferring I was being dishonest.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Thank you. It worked that time and the numbers come up as I suspected.

Jan 2001: 64.4
Jan 2009: 60.6
Mar 2015: 59.3

A drop of 3.8 under Bush and a drop of 1.3 under Obama.

I stand corrected. Obama had more opportunity for improvement.

so using your own stats provided by the BLS you're admitting BLS unemployment #'s are correct?

good boy.

Never said they were not, but if you read the subject line of the OP you will see it saind not working. You played semantics.

 

[pinqy]

the entire point is simple ... you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

1/3d of the country unemployed ?

Simple enough, show me the statistics that prove me wrong. You have not and can not. Typical liberal innuendo and BS.

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

Obama's fundamental transformation of the USA. He never said it would be for the better

 

[edthecynic]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

OK, thank you.
According to your link the employment to population ratio, not the LPR, was 64.4 when Bush started and 60.6 when he left, a loss of 3.8.
Obama started at 60.6 and is at 59.3 now, a loss of 1.3.

 

[Freewill]

Simple enough, show me the statistics that prove me wrong. You have not and can not. Typical liberal innuendo and BS.

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

 

[Siete]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

OK, thank you.
According to your link the employment to population ratio, not the LPR, was 64.4 when Bush started and 60.6 when he left, a loss of 3.8.
Obama started at 60.6 and is at 59.3 now, a loss of 1.3.

freewillie totally agrees with BLS stats ..

[email protected] THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2015 Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 126,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

• Employment Situation Summary - Bureau of Labor Statistics
  www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

who am I to argue?

 

[Freewill]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

OK, thank you.
According to your link the employment to population ratio, not the LPR, was 64.4 when Bush started and 60.6 when he left, a loss of 3.8.
Obama started at 60.6 and is at 59.3 now, a loss of 1.3.

Yes, I already admitted and corrected the mistake, thanks for taking the time to verify. I had it in my head 2008 which obviously meant he took over in 2009. Still, nothing for either of them to brag about.

 

[Freewill]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

OK, thank you.
According to your link the employment to population ratio, not the LPR, was 64.4 when Bush started and 60.6 when he left, a loss of 3.8.
Obama started at 60.6 and is at 59.3 now, a loss of 1.3.

freewillie totally agrees with BLS stats ..

[email protected] THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2015 Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 126,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

• Employment Situation Summary - Bureau of Labor Statistics
  www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

who am I to argue?

Isn't there a windmill in your area you can attack?

 

[Freewill]

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

Obama's fundamental transformation of the USA. He never said it would be for the better

The more poor people the better the poor people will feel about themselves. Is that better?

 

[Manonthestreet]

US population is 250??

 

[Siete]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

OK, thank you.
According to your link the employment to population ratio, not the LPR, was 64.4 when Bush started and 60.6 when he left, a loss of 3.8.
Obama started at 60.6 and is at 59.3 now, a loss of 1.3.

freewillie totally agrees with BLS stats ..

[email protected] THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2015 Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 126,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

• Employment Situation Summary - Bureau of Labor Statistics
  www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

who am I to argue?

Isn't there a windmill in your area you can attack?

why,, I have you.

glad you see unemployment stats provided by the BLS in agreement with your opinion.

thanks

unemployment 5.5%

 

[AceRothstein]

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

The unemployed looking for jobs are included in the labor force. Those not looking for jobs are not included in the labor force.

 

[Freewill]

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

OK, thank you.
According to your link the employment to population ratio, not the LPR, was 64.4 when Bush started and 60.6 when he left, a loss of 3.8.
Obama started at 60.6 and is at 59.3 now, a loss of 1.3.

freewillie totally agrees with BLS stats ..

[email protected] THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2015 Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 126,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

• Employment Situation Summary - Bureau of Labor Statistics
  www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

who am I to argue?

Isn't there a windmill in your area you can attack?

why,, I have you.

glad you see unemployment stats provided by the BLS in agreement with your opinion.

thanks

unemployment 5.5%

yes certainly you have me.

Create a false dichotomy.

Attack that false dichotomy.

Then agree with what I posted.

Then claim victory.

Yep, you got me.

 

[Freewill]

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

The unemployed looking for jobs are included in the labor force. Those not looking for jobs are not included in the labor force.

OK, I agree with that.

 

[Siete]

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

The unemployed looking for jobs are included in the labor force. Those not looking for jobs are not included in the labor force.

freewillie agrees with the BLS , its all good.

LOL

 

[AceRothstein]

US population is 250??

The overall population? No. The working age population? Yes.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

The unemployed looking for jobs are included in the labor force. Those not looking for jobs are not included in the labor force.

OK, I agree with that.

You should just take Pinqy's word for it. He knows what he's talking about with this stuff.

 

[pinqy]

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

it can be confusing.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

No: it's 102 million not working: 93 million of whom are not trying to work.

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

yes, but understand that "labor force" is employed plus unemployed"

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

No they don't. They say the employment to population ratio is 59.3%. There is no "job participation rate.

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

Yes. The 93 million are not trying to work. The unemployed are

 

[edthecynic]

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

If you are talking about the number "not working" rather than the number "unemployed" then yes.
As your MessiahRushie likes to put it, "not working, but eating" harkening back to the Nazi "useless eaters" meme. Of course, Porky then lies his fat ass off by claiming they ALL are being supported by the government.

October 15, 2013

RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

 

[pinqy]

US population is 250??

250 million age 16+ not in the military or an institution