- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,477
- 67,961
- 2,635
That fucker is thee most brain-dead poster here. If she were still alive today, you could get a more lucid reply from Teri Schiavo than you will ever get that rightard.What on Earth does that have to do with my post?When Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce so spin that shit somewhere else.Level is the actual numberCan you explain the difference between a level and a rate?Dumb ass I take it you can't read?Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.Dumb ass I take it you can't read?
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000
The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%
The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%
And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%
I was giving the definitions and used the September 2014 numbers as an example. No idea why you think t was comparing anything to Bush.