Economic BAD News.....more people LEFT the job market than jobs created in April

[P@triot]

You know when the participation rate peaked?

2000.

You people obsessing with the participation rate and also trying to tie it to the president are making a great case for electing another Bill Clinton.

You mean they are making a great case for electing another Ronald Reagan - because it was his leadership and policies which created the economic tidal wave that America rode until Slick Willy's socialism finally collapsed our housing market and our economy.

 

[gipper]

You know when the participation rate peaked?

2000.

You people obsessing with the participation rate and also trying to tie it to the president are making a great case for electing another Bill Clinton.

So...since it peaked under BJ Bubba, he is deserving of praise. Right?

Then logically it would follow that since it has dropped dramatically under your Messiah, he is deserving of much scorn. Right?

Funny...logic and the Left have little in common.

 

[bedowin62]

260,000 jobs were created

800,000 Americans; most of a million; left the job market altogether

\

to the idiotic, self-deceiving losers on the Left; that IS an example of success

idiots and hypocrites

 

[P@triot]

You know when the participation rate peaked?

2000.

You people obsessing with the participation rate and also trying to tie it to the president are making a great case for electing another Bill Clinton.

So...since it peaked under BJ Bubba, he is deserving of praise. Right?

Then logically it would follow that since it has dropped dramatically under your Messiah, he is deserving of much scorn. Right?

Funny...logic and the Left have little in common.

Boom! And gipper delivers a knockout blow to [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]! I can't wait to see how he attempts to answer this one (rest assured it will involve a lot of personal attacks and changing the subject).

 

[gipper]

You know when the participation rate peaked?

2000.

You people obsessing with the participation rate and also trying to tie it to the president are making a great case for electing another Bill Clinton.

So...since it peaked under BJ Bubba, he is deserving of praise. Right?

Then logically it would follow that since it has dropped dramatically under your Messiah, he is deserving of much scorn. Right?

Funny...logic and the Left have little in common.

Boom! And gipper delivers a knockout blow to [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]! I can't wait to see how he attempts to answer this one (rest assured it will involve a lot of personal attacks and changing the subject).

Apparently we will not receive a response from NYcarbineer. I suppose this indicates he/she/it has some understanding of logic, since there is no effective response.

I did expect an illogical response...something like..."it does not matter what the labor participation rate is, because Obama is great!!!" Of course that would be an illogical response, but one expected from Obama sycophants.

Is it any wonder the USA is a mess, when so many Americans are clueless?

 

[edthecynic]

So...since it peaked under BJ Bubba, he is deserving of praise. Right?

Then logically it would follow that since it has dropped dramatically under your Messiah, he is deserving of much scorn. Right?

Funny...logic and the Left have little in common.

Boom! And gipper delivers a knockout blow to [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]! I can't wait to see how he attempts to answer this one (rest assured it will involve a lot of personal attacks and changing the subject).

Apparently we will not receive a response from NYcarbineer. I suppose this indicates he/she/it has some understanding of logic, since there is no effective response.

I did expect an illogical response...something like..."it does not matter what the labor participation rate is, because Obama is great!!!" Of course that would be an illogical response, but one expected from Obama sycophants.

Is it any wonder the USA is a mess, when so many Americans are clueless?

Funny, that kind of response only comes from the Right!

The real reason the LPR is not a good economic indicator is because it is affected more by demographics like birth rate, retirees, and immigration than by economic conditions. Only the completely clueless consider it an important economic indicator.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is the economy stronger now than it was five years ago?

This is a yes or no question. We can deal with the reasons later.

Any honest nutters?

 

[gipper]

Boom! And gipper delivers a knockout blow to [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]! I can't wait to see how he attempts to answer this one (rest assured it will involve a lot of personal attacks and changing the subject).

Apparently we will not receive a response from NYcarbineer. I suppose this indicates he/she/it has some understanding of logic, since there is no effective response.

I did expect an illogical response...something like..."it does not matter what the labor participation rate is, because Obama is great!!!" Of course that would be an illogical response, but one expected from Obama sycophants.

Is it any wonder the USA is a mess, when so many Americans are clueless?

Funny, that kind of response only comes from the Right!

The real reason the LPR is not a good economic indicator is because it is affected more by demographics like birth rate, retirees, and immigration than by economic conditions. Only the completely clueless consider it an important economic indicator.

Okay...so you are claiming that the LPR is meaningless because of demographics. Well then you have to prove that demographics HAVE influenced the decrease in labor participation and NOT the terribly ineffective economic policies of our government. I do not think you can make that case.

First, birth rates are down currently, but that could be caused by the recession. Birth rates historically go down when the job market is weak. Plus those born since Obummer took office, obviously are too young to be in the work force.

Second, more people are forced into retiring because the job market is weak. Could be many would rather work, if jobs existed.

Third, you cite immigration as a factor affecting the LPR. We have open borders allowing a huge influx of illegal aliens, which has increased our population. This would seem to contradict your point.

 

[Howey]

260,000 jobs were created

800,000 Americans; most of a million; left the job market altogether

\

to the idiotic, self-deceiving losers on the Left; that IS an example of success

idiots and hypocrites

retiring baby boomers are not the reason for the mass exodus from the labor force.
this left-wing talking point has been debunked over and over


FACT: more Americans than EVER of retirement age are choosing NOT to retire and REMAIN IN THE LABOR MARKET

FACT: there is a record number of ABLE-BODIED, WORKING-AGE AMERICANS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LABOR MARKET


face it; libs are losers who lie to themselves

retiring baby boomers are not the reason for the mass exodus from the labor force.
this left-wing talking point has been debunked over and over


FACT: more Americans than EVER of retirement age are choosing NOT to retire and REMAIN IN THE LABOR MARKET

FACT: there is a record number of ABLE-BODIED, WORKING-AGE AMERICANS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LABOR MARKET


face it; libs are losers who lie to themselves

Since you didn't, or weren't able to, provide a source for your claim, here's one:

Nearly 300,000 baby boomers are retiring every month. That's 10k a day.

Is Baby Boomer Retirement Behind the Drop in July's Unemployment Rate? | Making Sen$e | PBS NewsHour

Why did thenemployment rate go down — from 7.6 percent to 7.4 percent? Because the official “workforce” actually declined — by about 40,000 people. What could explain the drop, given the rise in population? “Ten thousand baby boomers turn 65 today” has become a demographic cliché (or meme, if you prefer). Barring a mass and age-selective plague, that means that 10,000 or so are also turning 66, their official Social Security retirement age. Many, if not most, baby boomers are retiring. And since 10,000 a day equals 300,000 a month, if two-thirds of them are hanging up their rock ‘n’ roll work shoes, Friday’s numbers would make sense: 200,000 or so retirees offsetting the 200,000 or so new working-age Americans.

I have long warned against making too much of any one month’s unemployment numbers. But the story told above is plausible, if not provable.

Yes. You are an idiot and hypocrite.

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently we will not receive a response from NYcarbineer. I suppose this indicates he/she/it has some understanding of logic, since there is no effective response.

I did expect an illogical response...something like..."it does not matter what the labor participation rate is, because Obama is great!!!" Of course that would be an illogical response, but one expected from Obama sycophants.

Is it any wonder the USA is a mess, when so many Americans are clueless?

Funny, that kind of response only comes from the Right!

The real reason the LPR is not a good economic indicator is because it is affected more by demographics like birth rate, retirees, and immigration than by economic conditions. Only the completely clueless consider it an important economic indicator.

Okay...so you are claiming that the LPR is meaningless because of demographics. Well then you have to prove that demographics HAVE influenced the decrease in labor participation and NOT the terribly ineffective economic policies of our government. I do not think you can make that case.

First, birth rates are down currently, but that could be caused by the recession. Birth rates historically go down when the job market is weak. Plus those born since Obummer took office, obviously are too young to be in the work force.

Second, more people are forced into retiring because the job market is weak. Could be many would rather work, if jobs existed.

Third, you cite immigration as a factor affecting the LPR. We have open borders allowing a huge influx of illegal aliens, which has increased our population. This would seem to contradict your point.

Nobody is talking about birth rates after Obama took office! Birth rates were down after the Boomers, so there would be less young people entering the workforce then needed to offset the Boomers retiring at a rate of 3 million per year. The youngest Boomers today are 50 years old.

Not only are there more Boomers retiring then in past generations, more Boomers are continuing to stay in the workforce, so obviously there are jobs if the Boomers want them. There are just a lot of Boomers.

 

[gipper]

Funny, that kind of response only comes from the Right!

The real reason the LPR is not a good economic indicator is because it is affected more by demographics like birth rate, retirees, and immigration than by economic conditions. Only the completely clueless consider it an important economic indicator.

Okay...so you are claiming that the LPR is meaningless because of demographics. Well then you have to prove that demographics HAVE influenced the decrease in labor participation and NOT the terribly ineffective economic policies of our government. I do not think you can make that case.

First, birth rates are down currently, but that could be caused by the recession. Birth rates historically go down when the job market is weak. Plus those born since Obummer took office, obviously are too young to be in the work force.

Second, more people are forced into retiring because the job market is weak. Could be many would rather work, if jobs existed.

Third, you cite immigration as a factor affecting the LPR. We have open borders allowing a huge influx of illegal aliens, which has increased our population. This would seem to contradict your point.

Nobody is talking about birth rates after Obama took office! Birth rates were down after the Boomers, so there would be less young people entering the workforce then needed to offset the Boomers retiring at a rate of 3 million per year. The youngest Boomers today are 50 years old.

Not only are there more Boomers retiring then in past generations, more Boomers are continuing to stay in the workforce, so obviously there are jobs if the Boomers want them. There are just a lot of Boomers.

I do not think you understand the LPR. It is the percentage of people, of working age, working...right? So, birth rates have nothing to do with it.

The LPR is down, yet our population is growing resulting in more people of working age joining the labor force, yet they can't find jobs.

Regarding Boomers, they are retiring because jobs are scarce. Most Boomers have not saved enough to retire. And many who are retiring have not reached 65 years of age, which means they may not have healthcare.

 

[edthecynic]

Okay...so you are claiming that the LPR is meaningless because of demographics. Well then you have to prove that demographics HAVE influenced the decrease in labor participation and NOT the terribly ineffective economic policies of our government. I do not think you can make that case.

First, birth rates are down currently, but that could be caused by the recession. Birth rates historically go down when the job market is weak. Plus those born since Obummer took office, obviously are too young to be in the work force.

Second, more people are forced into retiring because the job market is weak. Could be many would rather work, if jobs existed.

Third, you cite immigration as a factor affecting the LPR. We have open borders allowing a huge influx of illegal aliens, which has increased our population. This would seem to contradict your point.

Nobody is talking about birth rates after Obama took office! Birth rates were down after the Boomers, so there would be less young people entering the workforce then needed to offset the Boomers retiring at a rate of 3 million per year. The youngest Boomers today are 50 years old.

Not only are there more Boomers retiring then in past generations, more Boomers are continuing to stay in the workforce, so obviously there are jobs if the Boomers want them. There are just a lot of Boomers.

I do not think you understand the LPR. It is the percentage of people, of working age, working...right? So, birth rates have nothing to do with it.

The LPR is down, yet our population is growing resulting in more people of working age joining the labor force, yet they can't find jobs.

Regarding Boomers, they are retiring because jobs are scarce. Most Boomers have not saved enough to retire. And many who are retiring have not reached 65 years of age, which means they may not have healthcare.

Birth rates and immigration rates of the workers following the birth of the Boomers have everything to do with how many new workers are entering the workforce as the Boomers leave.

Our workforce population is not growing fact enough to offset the number of Boomers leaving.

Boomers are retiring because they are getting old. 82% of Boomers are retired by age 65, down from 85% just before the Boomers.

 

[gipper]

Nobody is talking about birth rates after Obama took office! Birth rates were down after the Boomers, so there would be less young people entering the workforce then needed to offset the Boomers retiring at a rate of 3 million per year. The youngest Boomers today are 50 years old.

Not only are there more Boomers retiring then in past generations, more Boomers are continuing to stay in the workforce, so obviously there are jobs if the Boomers want them. There are just a lot of Boomers.

I do not think you understand the LPR. It is the percentage of people, of working age, working...right? So, birth rates have nothing to do with it.

The LPR is down, yet our population is growing resulting in more people of working age joining the labor force, yet they can't find jobs.

Regarding Boomers, they are retiring because jobs are scarce. Most Boomers have not saved enough to retire. And many who are retiring have not reached 65 years of age, which means they may not have healthcare.

Birth rates and immigration rates of the workers following the birth of the Boomers have everything to do with how many new workers are entering the workforce as the Boomers leave.

Our workforce population is not growing fact enough to offset the number of Boomers leaving.

Boomers are retiring because they are getting old. 82% of Boomers are retired by age 65, down from 85% just before the Boomers.

Your position is the LPR is low because of demographics like birth rates and retirements.

Regarding birth rates, yes birth rates were lower for the Baby Boom versus their parents. Fewer people born means fewer people joining the work force, when they reach working age. Yes?

However this has NOTHING to do with the LPR in mathematical terms. The LPR is a percentage of the whole.

Your position is contradictory. A decreasing number of working age Americans (due to retirements and lower birth rates) should result in an improving labor market, as employers find it difficult to find workers. Of course, this is not the case today.

Regarding Boomer retirements (those 65 are no longer counted in the LPR), these retirements should result in an IMPROVING labor market (rising LPR not lowering) as those jobs become available to younger workers.

So...how is it that the LPR continues to drop?

 

[bedowin62]

The left is embarrassing htemselves with idiotic excuses for the lowest rate of participation in the Labor Market in 40 years!

they blame it on Baby Boomers; except that more older Americans than ever are STAYING IN THE LABOR MARKET; and postponing retirement.
and; as noted about; the LPR is a percentge of the whole

THE FACTS ARE we have RECORD numbers of ABLE-BODIED, WORKING AGE Americans not in the labor market

idiots and hypocrites

 

[Edgetho]

The left is embarrassing htemselves with idiotic excuses for the lowest rate of participation in the Labor Market in 40 years!

they blame it on Baby Boomers; except that more older Americans than ever are STAYING IN THE LABOR MARKET; and postponing retirement.
and; as noted about; the LPR is a percentge of the whole

THE FACTS ARE we have RECORD numbers of ABLE-BODIED, WORKING AGE Americans not in the labor market

idiots and hypocrites

Yep

 

[KissMy]

Where were you pussies when the civilian labor force increased 503,000 in March. Employment of working age population ratio is increasing at faster rates than any Bush president ever achieved.

 

[bedowin62]

Where were you pussies when the civilian labor force increased 503,000 in March. Employment of working age population ratio is increasing at faster rates than any Bush president ever achieved.

no it isnt increasing you mindless moron; the tate of WORKING AGE AND ABLE-BODIED AMERICANS is at a 40 year low


idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

RECORD numbers of Americans are collecting some type of federal disability like SSI; and with RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS


you wonder why the rate of participation in the labor market is so low?

 

[bedowin62]

Labor Force Participation Rate for 25-29 Year Olds Hits ...

CNSNews.com *- 5 days ago

The labor force participation rate in April 2014 for Americans ages 25 to 29 hit the lowest level recorded since 1982, when the Bureau of Labor ...

 

[pinqy]

Regarding Boomer retirements (those 65 are no longer counted in the LPR), these retirements should result in an IMPROVING labor market (rising LPR not lowering) as those jobs become available to younger workers.

Untrue. There is no upper limit. The adult civilian non-institutional population are those age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution. Nor are those 65 or older excluded from being employed or unemployed (the Labor Force)