94 million? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[daws101]

sarcasm is a foreign concept to the right.
and there is that annoying problem of not enough no skill /low skill jobs to go around .
skilled jobs have hundreds of applicants for a limited number of positions.
but hey, don't let these facts deter you from bitching at people who can't find one.

 

[bedowin62]

to be honest it isnt that hard to make money, even in a world where clueless Progressive idiots make things harder for you, when they are still offering you tens of billions in money in the form of near-zero interest loans from Wall Street banks (quantitative easing)

 

[daws101]

to be honest it isnt that hard to make money, even in a world where clueless Progressive idiots make things harder for you, when they are still offering you tens of billions in money in the form of near-zero interest to Wall Street banks (quantitative easing)

Wall Street is getting tired of funding socially conservative Republicans running for president

• Linette Lopez

• Jun. 13, 2015, 7:30 AM
• 9,079
• 
  
• "I tend to be more Republican in my views, but socially very liberal. I'm going to have trouble with any Republican that does not disavow a fixation with social issues," he said.
  
  "Republicans have to understand that because young people in our country are not grabbed by those issues."
  
  
  
  Reuters/ Jeff Zelevansky Leon Cooperman.
  Republican candidates are not getting the message.
  
  In fact, some social conservatives are actually hardening their stances before a new wave of younger voters has the mass to make a difference at the polls.
  
  A recent Pew Research poll found that Republican Conservatives are the only group in America who have become less accepting of homosexuality over the last two years.
  
  This is not what Wall Street wants to see.
  
  Wall Street's ideal candidate is Michael Bloomberg — a billionaire businessman who's into environmental sustainability, urban development, infrastructure investment, and gay rights.
  
  These are all socially conservative no-nos.
  
  During the last presidential election, it looked like Wall Street might finally get the kind of Republican they were looking for — Mitt Romney.
  
  For most of his career, Romney was known as a moderate technocrat.
  
  But when he ran for president, Romney was forced to turn to entice the party base. He played up his conservative family values instead.
  
  Many on Wall Street loved his private-equity/business background to be sure. They liked his ideas on foreign policy, even, but they weren't crazy about his sudden lurch to the right on issues like abortion.
  
  From the way Cooperman talks about it, some on Wall Street are tired of compromise.
  
  It would be one thing if the compromise was leading to wins.
  
  But it's not.
  
  And in losing elections, Wall Street is also losing an investment. Each cycle, bundlers collect millions of dollars from Wall Street in increments of $2,700, of $5,000, and $34,800. They give to super PACs and party coffers; they give because they like a candidate or (more likely) because their boss or colleague loves a candidate.
  
  This isn't a lot of money to Wall Street, but it is money wasted on candidates they sometimes only half want.
  
  Instead they're forced to wait for a candidate they'll never get.

Wall Street and social conservatives - Business Insider

 

[pinqy]

Being a high school, college or graduate student, a senior citizen, a stay-at-home parent, a job-training participant, or having a disability is no excuse for not holding down a job, or for working less than 40 hours in a week.

Now get out there and WORK.

1. high school students arent generally counted as part of the work force

Right...that's what makes them part of the 94 million.

2. how are college students able to survive without working where in the past they often worked their way through college?

Same as always, some work, some don't. I didn't work my first two years of college.

3. senior citizens are more than ever choosing to REMAIN in the Labor Market; meaning you have to ADD THOSE BACK INTO the calculations. thanks for nothing idiot

But there are more elderly than ever. That leads to a downward push on the labor force participation rate. Would you like the math?

4. how are stay-at home parents able to stay at home now when that was a disappearing trend dummy??

Because in many cases, the costs of working (day care, gas, meals) outweigh the pay. If you're making low wages, you're better off not working than working.

5. have we never had jo training participants?

of course we have.

6. RECORD numbers are collecting a federal disability NOT RELATED to military service. why is that??

A lot of it is because the job prospects aren't so good and disability is preferable.

 

[Avorysuds]

We have more workers in the system as we have a higher population with a larger number of retirees.

Some of you, particularly on the far right, don't do well with numbers.

And you on the left just can't do math.

By % of population less people are working. End of equation. It's not just a number of people not working going up, its the % of the entire number of people.

Mainstream stupid you are Jake.

 

[bedowin62]

Being a high school, college or graduate student, a senior citizen, a stay-at-home parent, a job-training participant, or having a disability is no excuse for not holding down a job, or for working less than 40 hours in a week.

Now get out there and WORK.

1. high school students arent generally counted as part of the work force

Right...that's what makes them part of the 94 million.

2. how are college students able to survive without working where in the past they often worked their way through college?

Same as always, some work, some don't. I didn't work my first two years of college.

3. senior citizens are more than ever choosing to REMAIN in the Labor Market; meaning you have to ADD THOSE BACK INTO the calculations. thanks for nothing idiot

But there are more elderly than ever. That leads to a downward push on the labor force participation rate. Would you like the math?

4. how are stay-at home parents able to stay at home now when that was a disappearing trend dummy??

Because in many cases, the costs of working (day care, gas, meals) outweigh the pay. If you're making low wages, you're better off not working than working.

5. have we never had jo training participants?

of course we have.

6. RECORD numbers are collecting a federal disability NOT RELATED to military service. why is that??

A lot of it is because the job prospects aren't so good and disability is preferable.

i just cant understand why you keep wasting your own time here. you keep making my point for me. you are citing things that have been the same without acknowledging that the numbers have increased; while at the same time implying that the numbers havent increased, and everything is still as it used to be.

you're simply mentally-ill

 

[Muhammed]

Being a high school, college or graduate student, a senior citizen, a stay-at-home parent, a job-training participant, or having a disability is no excuse for not holding down a job, or for working less than 40 hours in a week.

Now get out there and WORK.

Fuck that.

I don't have to anymore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have more workers in the system as we have a higher population with a larger number of retirees.

Some of you, particularly on the far right, don't do well with numbers.

And you on the left just can't do math.

By % of population less people are working. End of equation. It's not just a number of people not working going up, its the % of the entire number of people.

Mainstream stupid you are Jake.

Yep, you prove my point. You can't handle the numbers. More people are retired is what you can't get.

 

[bedowin62]

Being a high school, college or graduate student, a senior citizen, a stay-at-home parent, a job-training participant, or having a disability is no excuse for not holding down a job, or for working less than 40 hours in a week.

Now get out there and WORK.

1. high school students arent generally counted as part of the work force

Right...that's what makes them part of the 94 million.

2. how are college students able to survive without working where in the past they often worked their way through college?

Same as always, some work, some don't. I didn't work my first two years of college.

3. senior citizens are more than ever choosing to REMAIN in the Labor Market; meaning you have to ADD THOSE BACK INTO the calculations. thanks for nothing idiot

But there are more elderly than ever. That leads to a downward push on the labor force participation rate. Would you like the math?
yes loon that puts some pressure on the LFPR; but it also lessens the impact of retirees. stop lying to yourself

4. how are stay-at home parents able to stay at home now when that was a disappearing trend dummy??

Because in many cases, the costs of working (day care, gas, meals) outweigh the pay. If you're making low wages, you're better off not working than working.

^^^ but that is exactly the point of the other side nutjob; that obama and progressive policies have made it easier not to work, AND THAT THE NUMBERS PROVE THAT.

5. have we never had jo training participants?

of course we have.

6. RECORD numbers are collecting a federal disability NOT RELATED to military service. why is that??

A lot of it is because the job prospects aren't so good and disability is preferable.

SO YOU'RE ADMITTING PEOPLE ARE GOING ON DISABILITY RATHER THAN WORKING??????

AGAIN THAT WAS A POINT, IS A POINT BEING MADE BY THE OTHER SIDE.


LMAO!!

 

[bedowin62]

We have more workers in the system as we have a higher population with a larger number of retirees.

Some of you, particularly on the far right, don't do well with numbers.

And you on the left just can't do math.

By % of population less people are working. End of equation. It's not just a number of people not working going up, its the % of the entire number of people.

Mainstream stupid you are Jake.

Yep, you prove my point. You can't handle the numbers. More people are retired is what you can't get.

what you cant get is that your meme here doesnt account for the higher numbers of WORKING-AGE Americans not participating in the Labor Force, idiot

you want to lecture others on not being good with this or that and you cant even handle basic realities of the situation.

 

[daws101]

Being a high school, college or graduate student, a senior citizen, a stay-at-home parent, a job-training participant, or having a disability is no excuse for not holding down a job, or for working less than 40 hours in a week.

Now get out there and WORK.

1. high school students arent generally counted as part of the work force

Right...that's what makes them part of the 94 million.

2. how are college students able to survive without working where in the past they often worked their way through college?

Same as always, some work, some don't. I didn't work my first two years of college.

3. senior citizens are more than ever choosing to REMAIN in the Labor Market; meaning you have to ADD THOSE BACK INTO the calculations. thanks for nothing idiot

But there are more elderly than ever. That leads to a downward push on the labor force participation rate. Would you like the math?
yes loon that puts some pressure on the LFPR; but it also lessens the impact of retirees. stop lying to yourself

4. how are stay-at home parents able to stay at home now when that was a disappearing trend dummy??

Because in many cases, the costs of working (day care, gas, meals) outweigh the pay. If you're making low wages, you're better off not working than working.

^^^ but that is exactly the point of the other side nutjob; that obama and progressive policies have made it easier not to work, AND THAT THE NUMBERS PROVE THAT.

5. have we never had jo training participants?

of course we have.

6. RECORD numbers are collecting a federal disability NOT RELATED to military service. why is that??

A lot of it is because the job prospects aren't so good and disability is preferable.

SO YOU'RE ADMITTING PEOPLE ARE GOING ON DISABILITY RATHER THAN WORKING??????

AGAIN THAT WAS A POINT, IS A POINT BEING MADE BY THE OTHER SIDE.


LMAO!!

false but you are incapable of seeing it any other way.

 

[daws101]

We have more workers in the system as we have a higher population with a larger number of retirees.

Some of you, particularly on the far right, don't do well with numbers.

And you on the left just can't do math.

By % of population less people are working. End of equation. It's not just a number of people not working going up, its the % of the entire number of people.

Mainstream stupid you are Jake.

Yep, you prove my point. You can't handle the numbers. More people are retired is what you can't get.

what you cant get is that your meme here doesnt account for the higher numbers of WORKING-AGE Americans not participating in the Labor Force, idiot

you want to lecture others on not being good with this or that and you cant even handle basic realities of the situation.

can't participate when there is nothing to participate in.
that's a basic reality you keep denying .

 

[bedowin62]

this whole thread is a case-study in how Progressives delude themselves. The OP and other Progs here are trying to dimsiss the idea that 94 million arent participating in the Labor Market by "proving" their point by explaining the reasons for the number being what it is.


but if their reasons are to be accepted and found to be true then they:

1. Make the case that the original number being cited by conservatives is ACCURATE AND

2. IT CONFIRMS WHAT THE RIGHT HAS BEEN SAYING THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS MADE IT EASIER NOT TO HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING


but the usual Progs here cant handle reality; and in their crybaby world they always want to have it both ways. They want to brag that so much job creation has happened, unemployment is so low and the number is real; while refusing to acknowledge that the Nanny state, the welfare state has increased under this President

idiots and hypocrites

 

[pinqy]

Being a high school, college or graduate student, a senior citizen, a stay-at-home parent, a job-training participant, or having a disability is no excuse for not holding down a job, or for working less than 40 hours in a week.

Now get out there and WORK.

1. high school students arent generally counted as part of the work force

Right...that's what makes them part of the 94 million.

2. how are college students able to survive without working where in the past they often worked their way through college?

Same as always, some work, some don't. I didn't work my first two years of college.

3. senior citizens are more than ever choosing to REMAIN in the Labor Market; meaning you have to ADD THOSE BACK INTO the calculations. thanks for nothing idiot

But there are more elderly than ever. That leads to a downward push on the labor force participation rate. Would you like the math?

4. how are stay-at home parents able to stay at home now when that was a disappearing trend dummy??

Because in many cases, the costs of working (day care, gas, meals) outweigh the pay. If you're making low wages, you're better off not working than working.

5. have we never had jo training participants?

of course we have.

6. RECORD numbers are collecting a federal disability NOT RELATED to military service. why is that??

A lot of it is because the job prospects aren't so good and disability is preferable.

i just cant understand why you keep wasting your own time here. you keep making my point for me. you are citing things that have been the same without acknowledging that the numbers have increased; while at the same time implying that the numbers havent increased, and everything is still as it used to be.

you're simply mentally-ill

Just because you don't understand the concepts (and you clearly don't) doesn't mean I have the problem. Of course the numbers have increased, who has said otherwise? But that doesn't mean there's any deception or that suddenly the methodology should change. If we're just looking at the labor market, it doesn't matter WHY someone isn't trying to work because it makes no difference.

For deeper analysis it makes a difference, but for the unemployment rate, it doesn't.

 

[bedowin62]

Being a high school, college or graduate student, a senior citizen, a stay-at-home parent, a job-training participant, or having a disability is no excuse for not holding down a job, or for working less than 40 hours in a week.

Now get out there and WORK.

1. high school students arent generally counted as part of the work force

Right...that's what makes them part of the 94 million.

2. how are college students able to survive without working where in the past they often worked their way through college?

Same as always, some work, some don't. I didn't work my first two years of college.

3. senior citizens are more than ever choosing to REMAIN in the Labor Market; meaning you have to ADD THOSE BACK INTO the calculations. thanks for nothing idiot

But there are more elderly than ever. That leads to a downward push on the labor force participation rate. Would you like the math?

4. how are stay-at home parents able to stay at home now when that was a disappearing trend dummy??

Because in many cases, the costs of working (day care, gas, meals) outweigh the pay. If you're making low wages, you're better off not working than working.

5. have we never had jo training participants?

of course we have.

6. RECORD numbers are collecting a federal disability NOT RELATED to military service. why is that??

A lot of it is because the job prospects aren't so good and disability is preferable.

i just cant understand why you keep wasting your own time here. you keep making my point for me. you are citing things that have been the same without acknowledging that the numbers have increased; while at the same time implying that the numbers havent increased, and everything is still as it used to be.

you're simply mentally-ill

Just because you don't understand the concepts (and you clearly don't) doesn't mean I have the problem. Of course the numbers have increased, who has said otherwise? But that doesn't mean there's any deception or that suddenly the methodology should change. If we're just looking at the labor market, it doesn't matter WHY someone isn't trying to work because it makes no difference.

For deeper analysis it makes a difference, but for the unemployment rate, it doesn't.

OH but you DO have the problem here. You want to talk out of both sides of your mouth and it isnt working out so well!! lmao!

the methodology should have changed long ago. you have basically admitted the numbers cited by the governemnt, ESPECIALLY the U-3 number, arent indidicative of realilty. if they dont tell the whole story dimwit then how can you say they arent decpetive??

 

[bedowin62]

to say that it makes no differenc why somebody isnt working is simpy ignorant. Let's use that logic to get rid of all "safety-net programs" shall we????

after all we dont know and it's nobody's business i guess according to you why they are working. so in the interest of the hard-working taxpayer who DOES work why should we not assume they dont want to work??

YOU SAID YOURSELF SOME DONT WANT TO WORK!!

should they not now then be released from collecting any form of welfare benefits???

"for a deeper analysis"

no dummy it matters for just the unemployment rate as cited by the government, AS WELL as those deeper concerns.

 

[pinqy]

this whole thread is a case-study in how Progressives delude themselves. The OP and other Progs here are trying to dimsiss the idea that 94 million arent participating in the Labor Market by "proving" their point by explaining the reasons for the number being what it is.

Who is dismissing the idea that there are 94 million not in the labor force? The question is whether there is any reason to be concerned. And for the most part, there is not as 93% say they don't want a job. Very, very few, less than a million, have "given up," but many want us to believe all 94 million have dropped out and have given up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of you don't understand the numbers. Study the chart, then we will talk.

Table 1.U.S. population, by age, selected years 1950–2080
Year Population (thousands) Percentage 65 or older
All ages Under 20 20–64 65 or older
Historical
1950 160,118 54,466 92,841 12,811 8
1970 214,765 80,684 113,158 20,923 10
1990 260,458 75,060 153,368 32,029 12
2005 302,323 83,963 181,457 36,902 12
Projected a
2020 339,269 87,547 198,213 53,510 16
2040 376,856 92,268 207,416 77,172 20
2060 402,079 96,760 218,777 86,543 22
2080 428,214 101,159 230,137 96,918 23
SOURCE: Board of Trustees (2006, Table V.A2) and authors' calculations.
NOTE: For the purpose of this table, the U.S. population is the Social Security area population, comprising residents of the 50 states and the District of Columbia (adjusted for net census undercount); civilian residents of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands; federal civilian employees and persons in the armed forces abroad and their dependents; crew members of merchant vessels; and all otherU.S. citizens abroad.
a. Projected using the intermediate assumptions in the 2006 annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Coping with the Demographic Challenge: Fewer Children and Living Longer

Summary
Due to demographic changes, the U.S. Social Security system will face financial challenges in the near future. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancies are causing the U.S. population to age. Today 12 percent of the total population is aged 65 or older, but by 2080, it will be 23 percent. At the same time, the working-age population is shrinking from 60 percent today to a projected 54 percent in 2080. Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040 (the year in which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted). This presents a significant challenge to policymakers.

One policy option that could help keep the Social Security system solvent is to reduce retirement benefits, either by raising the normal retirement age or through life expectancy indexing, to reflect the fact that people are living longer. However, these reductions in benefits have the potential to harm economically vulnerable retirees. Other options, such as progressive price indexing proposals, explicitly protect the retirement benefits of low lifetime earners. Still other options would seek to raise additional revenue for the system.

Since individuals will be living longer in retirement, many policymakers believe it is important to encourage older workers to delay retirement so that they can maintain a quality standard of living throughout their retirement. One proposal to encourage continued work would be to increase the early eligibility age for Social Security benefits from age 62 to age 65. This could possibly hurt individuals who need to retire from physically demanding jobs but would ensure that people receive higher benefit amounts once they were able to fully retire.

Other proposals that could promote more work at older ages include expanding phased retirement options and reforming pension and defined contribution systems to create incentives to work and save.

Introduction
Americans are living longer and are having fewer children. Together these factors result in the aging of the U.S. population and a subsequent strain on the Social Security system. This demographic challenge has been recognized by policy analysts as well as policymakers. President Bush, in his 2005 State of the Union Address (White House 2005), highlighted this problem, saying:

In today's world, people are living longer and, therefore, drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of sixteen workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.
This article describes policy implications and some potential policy solutions to this demographic challenge. It first provides context for the policy discussion by examining fertility, mortality, work, and retirement patterns in the United States and then discusses different policy options.

Background
As in many countries, the population in the United States is graying. Table 1 shows how the elderly population has increased over time and how it is projected to grow in the future. In 1950, 8 percent of the total population was aged 65 or older. That share was 12 percent in 2005 and is projected to reach 23 percent by 2080. The elderly population will have more than doubled as a percentage of the total population in just over 100 years. At the same time, the working-age population will have shrunk, from 60 percent in 2005 to 54 percent in 2080.

 

[Siete]