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

[Faun]

good one stupid; so you really are saying that people out of work is a good thing arent you?

good for them personally and good for the economy???

they are "free to pursue" other things. isnt that how you clowns are selling not having a job now?

No one is saying that. Just how ******* rightarded are you??

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

(leftard cries and sucks thumb; all butt-hurt nobody understands him)

Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.

I would ask you to stop pounding yourself in the head with your shoe, but it's kind of fun watching you do it.

 

[pinqy]

Because they do. If someone hasn't looked for a job for a year, they are 'not in the labor force.'

Actually, any longer than 4 weeks is not in the labor force.
Absolutely untrue. Please read the Employment Situation Technical Note

People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees
during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their
own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.
People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs
because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal
reasons.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor
force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a
percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the
employed as a percent of the population.

It is not untrue. People collecting employment benefits are considered 'unemployed' because even though many of them don't want a job, technically, they still have to claim they are looking for work in order to receive the benefit. But many of those people don't want to work.

In the Current Population Survey, for those not working, they are asked if they want a job, if they could start a job if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. A "no" answer to any of those means not unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force. They are not asked if they receive (or applied for or are eligble for) benefits.

Once their benefits expire, they either do continue looking for work because they actually want a job -- in those cases, they remain 'in the labor force' or they stop pretending they are interested in a job since there are no more unemployment checks coming -- in those cases, they soon fall out of 'in the labor force' once they no longer meet the criteria to remain in that status.

that's sort of true, in that that probably does happen, but since benefits are not asked about or known about by BLS, benefits play no part in the calculation. Again, Reciept or eligibilty for benefits play no part and never have in the calculations.

Meanwhile, all that really changed is that their unemployment benefits expired.

No, what changed was that they stopped looking for work. The job search is the criterion. Or, as you say, they stop claiming they want a job. Desire for a job is another criterion.

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry, but infringing on the absurd doesn't help you. That argument of yours is no different than the absurd argument that if raising taxes from 35 to 39 percent among the highest income earners is good for the economy, then raising their taxes to 100% should be even better.

That's like saying if an obese person losing a few pounds is good, than losing 100% of their weight should be even better.

You have to understand that his MessiahRushie told him that everyone not in the labor force is a useless eater living off the government teat.
Next the Right will stoke up the furnaces!

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.

good one stupid; so you really are saying that people out of work is a good thing arent you?

good for them personally and good for the economy???

they are "free to pursue" other things. isnt that how you clowns are selling not having a job now?

There were many on the Right who used to say that Stay-At-Home Moms were a good thing, and they used to encourage students over 16 to stay in school. When did those things become bad??? And what is wrong with retiring?

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks for the world depression and 4 1/2 years of mindless obstruction and phony crises, and now blaming our economic problems on Obama policy, none of which has been passed lol...

 

[depotoo]

I also note that you have still failed (miserably, might I add) to show how the drop in the labor force participation rate is bad for the economy. You tried to rant, hoping no one would notice you couldn't actually answer that. But it remains unanswered. Which of course, is by design, since it doesn't actually inidicate the economy is bad.

Tell us why it is good for the economy, in your opinion. And a hint for you, when the participation rate drops while working population grows, what does that show?

 

[bedowin62]

Thanks for the world depression and 4 1/2 years of mindless obstruction and phony crises, and now blaming our economic problems on Obama policy, none of which has been passed lol...

O-BOT ALERT!!

warning!! rabid defense of failure by race-obsessed left-wing loser in effect!

 

[bedowin62]

No one is saying that. Just how ******* rightarded are you??

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

(leftard cries and sucks thumb; all butt-hurt nobody understands him)

Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.

I would ask you to stop pounding yourself in the head with your shoe, but it's kind of fun watching you do it.

yawn

wake me when you're done crying

 

[kaz]

The economy still sucks little puppy. Did you miss the memo?

Um...no...that was his point. Democrats are saying how great the economy is and their military wing, the liberal media, are pounding it home for them.

Seriously, you didn't get that???

 

[francoHFW]

EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...

 

[bedowin62]

EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...

"Pub policy"?

this is the EIGHT-STRAIGHT YEAR of Progressive Majority governemnt in the USA
what a pathetic loser you are

 

[kaz]

You have to understand that his MessiahRushie told him that everyone not in the labor force is a useless eater living off the government teat.
Next the Right will stoke up the furnaces!

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.

good one stupid; so you really are saying that people out of work is a good thing arent you?

good for them personally and good for the economy???

they are "free to pursue" other things. isnt that how you clowns are selling not having a job now?

There were many on the Right who used to say that Stay-At-Home Moms were a good thing, and they used to encourage students over 16 to stay in school. When did those things become bad??? And what is wrong with retiring?

EdTheLemming, wow. Seriously, you think jobs are down because women are staying home and kids are staying in school? Democrats are always good for a laugh. Sure it's at you not with you, but still, a good laugh.

 

[kaz]

EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...

So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?

 

[Faun]

Actually, any longer than 4 weeks is not in the labor force.
Absolutely untrue. Please read the Employment Situation Technical Note

It is not untrue. People collecting employment benefits are considered 'unemployed' because even though many of them don't want a job, technically, they still have to claim they are looking for work in order to receive the benefit. But many of those people don't want to work.

In the Current Population Survey, for those not working, they are asked if they want a job, if they could start a job if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. A "no" answer to any of those means not unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force. They are not asked if they receive (or applied for or are eligble for) benefits.

that's sort of true, in that that probably does happen, but since benefits are not asked about or known about by BLS, benefits play no part in the calculation. Again, Reciept or eligibilty for benefits play no part and never have in the calculations.

Meanwhile, all that really changed is that their unemployment benefits expired.

No, what changed was that they stopped looking for work. The job search is the criterion. Or, as you say, they stop claiming they want a job. Desire for a job is another criterion.

For many people collecting those benefits, the only reason they stopped is because the benefits stopped. Nothing else changed.

 

[francoHFW]

132-Notice the mindless obstruction thing, Foxbot?

 

[Faun]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

(leftard cries and sucks thumb; all butt-hurt nobody understands him)

Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.

I would ask you to stop pounding yourself in the head with your shoe, but it's kind of fun watching you do it.

yawn

wake me when you're done crying

No worries. That sure was some tantrum you threw just to avoid answering my initial question ... How is that [the drop in the LFPR] bad for the economy?

Think anyone else noticed?

 

[Faun]

EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...

So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?

I hold him responsible now.

We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.

Thanks, Obama!

 

[kaz]

EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...

So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?

I hold him responsible now.

We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.

Thanks, Obama!

And do you hold him responsible for the weakest GDP recovery since WWII and for labor participation being at record lows? Or does holding him responsible for you just mean cherry picking stats you like?

 

[bedowin62]

Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.

I would ask you to stop pounding yourself in the head with your shoe, but it's kind of fun watching you do it.

yawn

wake me when you're done crying

No worries. That sure was some tantrum you threw just to avoid answering my initial question ... How is that [the drop in the LFPR] bad for the economy?

Think anyone else noticed?

it's laughable really; how comically ignorant you are.

not that it matters to a brainwashed loser like you. but i'll answer your question Captain Obvious

the food stamps program BY ITSELF is approaching a cost of $1 TRILLION for ten years

where is that money coming from?
who will have to repay that back........with interest?

 

[bedowin62]

So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?

I hold him responsible now.

We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.

Thanks, Obama!

And do you hold him responsible for the weakest GDP recovery since WWII and for labor participation being at record lows? Or does holding him responsible for you just mean cherry picking stats you like?

it's comical; the poor arrogant liberal loser wants to give obama credit for the "good" and not for the bad. he or she is a typical left-wing crybaby; always trying to have it both ways

IF we've had so much consecutive job growth how can the labor force participation rate be so low?
how can welfare and food stamps still have to be at RECORD LEVELS?


how come people need to stil be able to collect UC for 2 years?

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[pinqy]

It is not untrue. People collecting employment benefits are considered 'unemployed' because even though many of them don't want a job, technically, they still have to claim they are looking for work in order to receive the benefit. But many of those people don't want to work.

In the Current Population Survey, for those not working, they are asked if they want a job, if they could start a job if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. A "no" answer to any of those means not unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force. They are not asked if they receive (or applied for or are eligble for) benefits.

that's sort of true, in that that probably does happen, but since benefits are not asked about or known about by BLS, benefits play no part in the calculation. Again, Reciept or eligibilty for benefits play no part and never have in the calculations.

Meanwhile, all that really changed is that their unemployment benefits expired.

No, what changed was that they stopped looking for work. The job search is the criterion. Or, as you say, they stop claiming they want a job. Desire for a job is another criterion.

For many people collecting those benefits, the only reason they stopped is because the benefits stopped. Nothing else changed.

The stopping is the thing that changed. You're listing TWO things that changed but saying that one of them is the only thing that's changed. Look...isolate the variables. Person A wants a job, could take a job, and is looking for work and is receiving benefits. If the next month he loses his benefits but still wants a job, could still take a job and is still looking, he will still be classified as unemployed.
But if instead he still received benefits but no longer wanted a job, he would be not in the labor force.
If he still received benefits but could no longer take a job if offered, he would be not in the labor force.
And if he still received benefits but was no longer looking (presumably lying to the UI claims people and saying he was), then he would be not in the labor force.

And again, since BLS has no idea if a person is receiving benefits or not, it pays no part in the calculation.