Record 93 million Americans not working

[Siete]

Heard on BBC radio that the latest unemployment data puts jobs created each month (excluding temporary agricultural work) down from 250,000 to 175,000 a month.

retiring and LEAVING the labor force is TOTALLY different than being unemployed.

have a 3rd grader explain it ...

 

[AceRothstein]

Usin

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

What Pogo said.

Headlines like yours work for people who are innumerate. Intelligent people, though, don't fall for that shit.

The 14 year plunge of the LFPR which began long before the current Administration has been halted for the past 12 months.

591,000 jobs have been added this year, so far.

U1 through U6 have all declined in the past year.

This is all GOOD news. I know how much it pains you party-before-country idiots that people are getting jobs and unemployment is going down, but try not to be such assholes about it.

As always me being truthful what POGO said appears to be true:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

What you said isn't really exactly right. The plunge occurred on Obama's watch and after two years of democrat rule. Maybe it was beyond his ability to stop it but that is not what you said. Would I say you are untruthful? No. I say you just know so much that isn't so.

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

 

[Freewill]

not again, please.

This 93 million BS has been debunked sooooo many times its laughable when RW idiots keep posting it. It's not worth the time to explain it to them. They're too damn stupid to understand it.

Using this graph which puts the number of the labor force at 157000000. Multiply that by the percentage on the chart provide in another thread 59.3 and that equals 157000000 X .593 = 93000000 give or take a few thousand. Of course the is according to the BLS not your memory.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

What Pogo said.

Headlines like yours work for people who are innumerate. Intelligent people, though, don't fall for that shit.

The 14 year plunge of the LFPR which began long before the current Administration has been halted for the past 12 months.

591,000 jobs have been added this year, so far.

U1 through U6 have all declined in the past year.

This is all GOOD news. I know how much it pains you party-before-country idiots that people are getting jobs and unemployment is going down, but try not to be such assholes about it.

Your data is equally for the inane.
591k jobs added...what KIND of jobs???
Right now the PT to FT job ratio is as bad as it gets.
Wages are down.
The top 7% wage earners since 2009 have lavished in an unprecedented 33% increase in earnings, while the remaining 93% of WORKING Americans have suffered a 5% loss, which I have not seen the updated data - but that figure is likely 6% now.
Just 591k jobs is NOT good if you lost 250k FT high wage-jobs to be replaced by 350k PT low wage jobs.

Two dimensional data is a terrible measure of the success or failure of anything, you have to go beyond line charts to get anything meaningful.

 

[Siete]

300 million people in this country and 93 million are unemployed ?



RW's crack me up.

 

[Freewill]

Usin

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

What Pogo said.

Headlines like yours work for people who are innumerate. Intelligent people, though, don't fall for that shit.

The 14 year plunge of the LFPR which began long before the current Administration has been halted for the past 12 months.

591,000 jobs have been added this year, so far.

U1 through U6 have all declined in the past year.

This is all GOOD news. I know how much it pains you party-before-country idiots that people are getting jobs and unemployment is going down, but try not to be such assholes about it.

As always me being truthful what POGO said appears to be true:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

What you said isn't really exactly right. The plunge occurred on Obama's watch and after two years of democrat rule. Maybe it was beyond his ability to stop it but that is not what you said. Would I say you are untruthful? No. I say you just know so much that isn't so.

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2009 = 60.6

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 3.8, Obama 1.3

Actual data found here: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

EDIT: I corrected these numbers after my mistake was pointed out, wrong year was used.

 

[Freewill]

300 million people in this country and 93 million are unemployed ?



RW's crack me up.

According to the BLS and the facts provided to you from them, yes that is true. Your response is disingenuous.

 

[boedicca]

Heard on BBC radio that the latest unemployment data puts jobs created each month (excluding temporary agricultural work) down from 250,000 to 175,000 a month.

retiring and LEAVING the labor force is TOTALLY different than being unemployed.

have a 3rd grader explain it ...

Here's what moonbats such as yourself do not comprehend: when people LEAVE the workforce, they are usually drawing entitlement benefits. When the ratio of workers to adult beneficiary is 1.5 to 1, the tax burden on the shrinking ratio of workers becomes prohibitive.

Perhaps you should be concerned about the world you are leaving the 3rd grader.

 

[Siete]

these RW idiots can post every chart in the world and can't prove almost 1/3rd of the country is unemployed.
Hell, during the great depression there were only 20% of the people not working ... and now its a 1/3rd ? ... not a bread line in shght.

LMAO.

 

[Freewill]

Except for rich, Americans' incomes fell last year

 

[Freewill]

these RW idiots can post every chart in the world and can't prove almost 1/3rd of the country is unemployed.
Hell, during the great depression there were only 20% of the people not working ... and now its a 1/3rd ? ... not a bread line in shght.

LMAO.

So, you don't think that the EBT card is the new soup kitchen? Or that food banks are doing a booming business?

The fact provided to you are from the BLS, your argument is between their facts and what you have made up in your head.

 

[AceRothstein]

Usin

What Pogo said.

Headlines like yours work for people who are innumerate. Intelligent people, though, don't fall for that shit.

The 14 year plunge of the LFPR which began long before the current Administration has been halted for the past 12 months.

591,000 jobs have been added this year, so far.

U1 through U6 have all declined in the past year.

This is all GOOD news. I know how much it pains you party-before-country idiots that people are getting jobs and unemployment is going down, but try not to be such assholes about it.

As always me being truthful what POGO said appears to be true:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

What you said isn't really exactly right. The plunge occurred on Obama's watch and after two years of democrat rule. Maybe it was beyond his ability to stop it but that is not what you said. Would I say you are untruthful? No. I say you just know so much that isn't so.

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Your chart and stats don't match. Also, Obama wasn't inaugurate in 2008.

 

[Siete]

Usin

What Pogo said.

Headlines like yours work for people who are innumerate. Intelligent people, though, don't fall for that shit.

The 14 year plunge of the LFPR which began long before the current Administration has been halted for the past 12 months.

591,000 jobs have been added this year, so far.

U1 through U6 have all declined in the past year.

This is all GOOD news. I know how much it pains you party-before-country idiots that people are getting jobs and unemployment is going down, but try not to be such assholes about it.

As always me being truthful what POGO said appears to be true:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

What you said isn't really exactly right. The plunge occurred on Obama's watch and after two years of democrat rule. Maybe it was beyond his ability to stop it but that is not what you said. Would I say you are untruthful? No. I say you just know so much that isn't so.

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider


left the work force, NOT unemployed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Freewill]

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

What Pogo said.

Headlines like yours work for people who are innumerate. Intelligent people, though, don't fall for that shit.

The 14 year plunge of the LFPR which began long before the current Administration has been halted for the past 12 months.

591,000 jobs have been added this year, so far.

U1 through U6 have all declined in the past year.

This is all GOOD news. I know how much it pains you party-before-country idiots that people are getting jobs and unemployment is going down, but try not to be such assholes about it.

Your data is equally for the inane.
591k jobs added...what KIND of jobs???
Right now the PT to FT job ratio is as bad as it gets.
Wages are down.
The top 7% wage earners since 2009 have lavished in an unprecedented 33% increase in earnings, while the remaining 93% of WORKING Americans have suffered a 5% loss, which I have not seen the updated data - but that figure is likely 6% now.
Just 591k jobs is NOT good if you lost 250k FT high wage-jobs to be replaced by 350k PT low wage jobs.

Two dimensional data is a terrible measure of the success or failure of anything, you have to go beyond line charts to get anything meaningful.

hey what do you mean equally for the inane? My statistics all come from the BLS.

 

[Freewill]

Usin
As always me being truthful what POGO said appears to be true:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

What you said isn't really exactly right. The plunge occurred on Obama's watch and after two years of democrat rule. Maybe it was beyond his ability to stop it but that is not what you said. Would I say you are untruthful? No. I say you just know so much that isn't so.

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

 

[AceRothstein]

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

Retirees are counted. Where did you get the impression that they aren't? Everyone 16 and over is counted unless they are in a prison, psych facility or retirement home.

 

[Freewill]

Usin
As always me being truthful what POGO said appears to be true:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

What you said isn't really exactly right. The plunge occurred on Obama's watch and after two years of democrat rule. Maybe it was beyond his ability to stop it but that is not what you said. Would I say you are untruthful? No. I say you just know so much that isn't so.

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Your chart and stats don't match. Also, Obama wasn't inaugurate in 2008.

Go to the site provided and there is a chart on that page that supplies the numbers that I used. They obviously match the chart.

 

[AceRothstein]

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Your chart and stats don't match. Also, Obama wasn't inaugurate in 2008.

Go to the site provided and there is a chart on that page that supplies the numbers that I used. They obviously match the chart.

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

 

[Freewill]

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

Retirees are counted. Where did you get the impression that they aren't? Everyone 16 and over is counted unless they are in a prison, psych facility or retirement home.

From post 15:

While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.

Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor Force / Total Population over Age 16) * 100

EconPort - Defining the Labor Force

That is why in a population of 314 million the labor force is 157 million.

 

[Siete]

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

the entire point is simple ... you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

1/3d of the country unemployed ?