Record 90,609,000 Americans Not In Labor Force

[expat_panama]

...July 2013 had the record number in the labor force. With a bigger population the numbers will be higher...

Actually, not that much higher. Here's the total jobless (not in labor force + unemployed) as a percentage of the total population:

It's bad. So bad that there's no way around the fact that we really need to undo the damage done during the 110th and 111th congresses.

 

[OnePercenter]

...what happens when you have eight years of Bush.

It destroys the economy five years AFTER he leaves office? ...!

I still remember left wingers in '08 saying 6% unemployment meant we needed new leadership.

Tell the millions of Americans that lost all or part of their 401k in 2007-2008 that everything is OK now.

 

[OnePercenter]

What about the record number of retired folks (baby boomers) and folks like me who are rich. And what about my two sugar babies?

Nice try.

Old Boomers is not the issue. We have a greater & growing ratio of working age to population ratio than before. Inefficient Wallstreet & Government have failed to efficiently utilize the workforce.

So we don't have a record number of retired folks?

 

[pinqy]

...July 2013 had the record number in the labor force. With a bigger population the numbers will be higher...

Actually, not that much higher. Here's the total jobless (not in labor force + unemployed) as a percentage of the total population:

It's bad. So bad that there's no way around the fact that we really need to undo the damage done during the 110th and 111th congresses.

You used the wrong population...
You used total when you should have used adult civilian non-institutional

 

[OnePercenter]

Five years later, Booooooosssssshhhhhhhhhh..............

Bush, Republicans, and wall street created the worst financial crash in the history of the world. It will be 8 to 10 years from 2009 before we're fully recovered, unless you vote out the Republicans which will knock off a few years.

That's odd, because Obama claimed he would have it fixed up in 4 years or less or he wouldn't run for President.... He ran again, so I guess if things are getting worse it's because of him.

Or you would have to admit things were not better after Obama';s first term, and that he lied about not running again if he didn't have things "fixed" and that he lied about the recovery and the stimulus.

What Obama has done is make an ass out of his entire voter base. You love wars and military spending, you love deficits, you love Guantanamo, you love spying on citizens, you love assassinating citizens, you love pissing off allies, you love arming terrorists, you love division in our own country...

More wars and more military spending and no protests in sight... Dems only cared about party, never about country.

Based on the information in 2008 that was correct. Unfortunately, in 2009 the actual numbers came out showing that Bush/Republicans/wall streets had caused the worst financial collapse in the history of the world.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It destroys the economy five years AFTER he leaves office? ...!

I still remember left wingers in '08 saying 6% unemployment meant we needed new leadership.

Tell the millions of Americans that lost all or part of their 401k in 2007-2008 that everything is OK now.

Do you speak English? Is it your second language? What is your comprehension deficiency here, Mensa Boy?

I didn't say "everything's okay now", shitforbrains. I said only a mouthbreather like you would believe that today's economic condition has more to do with a man who's been out of office for five years than it does with the man who's been in office ALL FIVE of those years.

I swear, talking to fools like you as though you're real people should count as a charitable contribution on my taxes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What about the record number of retired folks (baby boomers) and folks like me who are rich. And what about my two sugar babies?

Nice try.

Old Boomers is not the issue. We have a greater & growing ratio of working age to population ratio than before. Inefficient Wallstreet & Government have failed to efficiently utilize the workforce.

So we don't have a record number of retired folks?

So they're not relevant to the discussion, fucknut. Seriously, WHAT is your damage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bush, Republicans, and wall street created the worst financial crash in the history of the world. It will be 8 to 10 years from 2009 before we're fully recovered, unless you vote out the Republicans which will knock off a few years.

That's odd, because Obama claimed he would have it fixed up in 4 years or less or he wouldn't run for President.... He ran again, so I guess if things are getting worse it's because of him.

Or you would have to admit things were not better after Obama';s first term, and that he lied about not running again if he didn't have things "fixed" and that he lied about the recovery and the stimulus.

What Obama has done is make an ass out of his entire voter base. You love wars and military spending, you love deficits, you love Guantanamo, you love spying on citizens, you love assassinating citizens, you love pissing off allies, you love arming terrorists, you love division in our own country...

More wars and more military spending and no protests in sight... Dems only cared about party, never about country.

Based on the information in 2008 that was correct. Unfortunately, in 2009 the actual numbers came out showing that Bush/Republicans/wall streets had caused the worst financial collapse in the history of the world.

Riiiight, Sparkles. You just keep telling yourself that's a serious, intelligent, valid observation . . . while we all laugh ourselves into hernias at you.

 

[expat_panama]

...only a mouthbreather like you would believe that today's economic condition has more to do with a man who's been out of office for five years than it does with the man who's been in office ALL FIVE of those years...

Those may not have been the words and tone I might have come up with, but I'll admit you're right, that we've reached a point that this is the only way the situation can be clearly described.

 

[Freewill]

Record 90,609,000 Americans Not In Labor Force

Record number of Americans alive today

Stupid is as stupid does.

And what exactly are you claiming is stupid? July 2013 had the record number in the labor force. With a bigger population the numbers will be higher

Well first of all what is stupid is the stupidity of making statements without a shred of evidence. Second the participation rate is DOWN which means it is not dependent on how many are in the labor force. That is how they lie to you buddy. They say things that YOU want to believe but are just stupid.

Here go to this site and read statistics: Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2009 the participation RATE was 65.7 it is now 63.2. Which means, because the population has increased that even more people are not working. If the participation rate would have stayed the same it would have meant that more work participation and more were not but the percentage would be the same. That is why they measure it as a rate.

Think about this also. You are defending a poster who does not tell the truth about his political affiliation. Are you going to trust such a person?

 

[Freewill]

It destroys the economy five years AFTER he leaves office? ...!

I still remember left wingers in '08 saying 6% unemployment meant we needed new leadership.

Tell the millions of Americans that lost all or part of their 401k in 2007-2008 that everything is OK now.

I doubt I can find someone who lost all of their 401Ks. Can you name a few?

 

[OnePercenter]

I still remember left wingers in '08 saying 6% unemployment meant we needed new leadership.

Tell the millions of Americans that lost all or part of their 401k in 2007-2008 that everything is OK now.

I doubt I can find someone who lost all of their 401Ks. Can you name a few?

Due to the lingering effects of the Bush/Republicans/wall street worst economic disaster in the history of the world.

R.I.P. Retirement: 28% Of Americans Are Raiding Their 401k Plans | Zero Hedge

 

[R.C. Christian]

Soon the government will be raiding the rest of the 401K's.

 

[OnePercenter]

Soon the government will be raiding the rest of the 401K's.

Republicans allowed wall street to do that.

 

[Amelia]

Bush, Republicans, and wall street created the worst financial crash in the history of the world. It will be 8 to 10 years from 2009 before we're fully recovered, unless you vote out the Republicans which will knock off a few years.

That's odd, because Obama claimed he would have it fixed up in 4 years or less or he wouldn't run for President.... He ran again, so I guess if things are getting worse it's because of him.

Or you would have to admit things were not better after Obama';s first term, and that he lied about not running again if he didn't have things "fixed" and that he lied about the recovery and the stimulus.

What Obama has done is make an ass out of his entire voter base. You love wars and military spending, you love deficits, you love Guantanamo, you love spying on citizens, you love assassinating citizens, you love pissing off allies, you love arming terrorists, you love division in our own country...

More wars and more military spending and no protests in sight... Dems only cared about party, never about country.

Based on the information in 2008 that was correct. Unfortunately, in 2009 the actual numbers came out showing that Bush/Republicans/wall streets had caused the worst financial collapse in the history of the world.

That's why 2010 was declared the summer of recovery ... oh wait .... hmmmm

 

[pinqy]

Stupid is as stupid does.

And what exactly are you claiming is stupid? July 2013 had the record number in the labor force. With a bigger population the numbers will be higher

Well first of all what is stupid is the stupidity of making statements without a shred of evidence.

Ok, evidence that the Labor Force level was at its peak in July 2013

For the data go to BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and enter series LNS11000000

Second the participation rate is DOWN which means it is not dependent on how many are in the labor force.

ummm of course it is...participation rate is the number of people in the Labor Force divided by the number of people in the adult non-institutional population.
But we weren't talking about rates...the thread is about the level of not in the Labor Force. To spell out my point: that the level being at its highest is meaningless when the population is at its highest. And the percent not in the Labor Force is not at its highest. It's wet than anytime before 1978. As you pointed out, it's the rate not the level that's more important.

That is how they lie to you buddy. They say things that YOU want to believe but are just stupid.

who are "they?" Those that emphasize the level for not in the Labor Force but rate for labor force?

In 2009 the participation RATE was 65.7 it is now 63.2. Which means, because the population has increased that even more people are not working.

No, it means that the number in the Labor Force has not increased slower than the population labor force level dropped some by has been going back up, though unevenly.

If the participation rate would have stayed the same it would have meant that more work participation and more were not but the percentage would be the same.

No, it would mean the Labor Force level increased by the same percent as the population.

And you do understand that the Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed, right? The number of employed can go down but the Labor Force can go up.

 

[SteadyMercury]

who are "they?"

Any source of information that doesn't support the argument he is trying to make.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Soon the government will be raiding the rest of the 401K's.

Hah hah it is always funny to see the redneck who is dumb enough to buy into fear-mongering saying stuff like this

 

[expat_panama]

...lingering effects of the Bush/Republicans/wall street worst economic disaster in the history of the world...

Let's sort this out. The worst economic disaster was with total jobless static, but as the disaster was first slowed by congress and then later eliminated in the White House---

--we immediately got 16 million more jobless and then 2 million more jobless since.




I liked it with the disaster better.