The Obama legacy: 92898000 Americans not working

[LoneLaugher]

Ooh, you really told me, didn't you? What kind of business, Boss?

Yes....I did tell you. You are coming off like an idiot here.

I distribute cutting tools and other industrial supplies.

What do you do for a living?

If anything, you deliver them for somebody else. You're too stupid to hold a business together. In fact, you're too stupid to hold down a job, other than general labor.

I am enjoying this discussion. You are clearly jealous. When are you going to tell me what you do for a living?

Yeah, I'm just green with envy, Boss. I've always wanted to have a business cashing welfare checks.

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Cool story. I sign some on the front and some on the back. What does that make me?

Full disclosure. I have a stamp for the backs of checks.......and I pay all of my bills electronically.....so I don't really sign any checks.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ooh, you really told me, didn't you? What kind of business, Boss?

Yes....I did tell you. You are coming off like an idiot here.

I distribute cutting tools and other industrial supplies.

What do you do for a living?

If anything, you deliver them for somebody else. You're too stupid to hold a business together. In fact, you're too stupid to hold down a job, other than general labor.

I am enjoying this discussion. You are clearly jealous. When are you going to tell me what you do for a living?

Yeah, I'm just green with envy, Boss. I've always wanted to have a business cashing welfare checks.

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Republicans have to learn how to read and write first.

 

[Freewill]

Yes....I did tell you. You are coming off like an idiot here.

I distribute cutting tools and other industrial supplies.

What do you do for a living?

If anything, you deliver them for somebody else. You're too stupid to hold a business together. In fact, you're too stupid to hold down a job, other than general labor.

I am enjoying this discussion. You are clearly jealous. When are you going to tell me what you do for a living?

Yeah, I'm just green with envy, Boss. I've always wanted to have a business cashing welfare checks.

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Republicans have to learn how to read and write first.

Does you mom know you are up this early?

You men that Republicans can not read or write but took over all the evil corporations? Quite a feat.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If anything, you deliver them for somebody else. You're too stupid to hold a business together. In fact, you're too stupid to hold down a job, other than general labor.

I am enjoying this discussion. You are clearly jealous. When are you going to tell me what you do for a living?

Yeah, I'm just green with envy, Boss. I've always wanted to have a business cashing welfare checks.

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Republicans have to learn how to read and write first.

Does you mom know you are up this early?

You men that Republicans can not read or write but took over all the evil corporations? Quite a feat.

Well written. Perfect reply.

 

[Bfgrn]

Should be enough in these articles to clearly see the country that Obama has built.

92,898,000 Americans Not Working...

Labor Force Participation Rate at 37-Year-Low...

Record 56,023,000 Women Not in Labor Force...

Black unemployment rate nearly twice national average...

Net Employment Gains Since Recession Went To Foreign-Born...

No, Obama's Not to Blame for Our Historically Pathetic Participation Rate
Father Time and colleges are

In December, the U.S. participation rate—that's the share of the working-age population that's working or looking to work—dropped to its lowest percentage in four decades. In Washington, bad news means somebody must be blamed, so some Republicans (e.g.: Rep. Lynn Jenkins and Rep. Marsha Blackburn) have decided that someone is President Obama.

Unlike the country's high unemployment and slow job-creation, our low participation rate (the lowest since 1978, to be exact) is sometimes considered something of a mystery. But upon examination, it's really not that mysterious. The recession has discouraged many people from looking for a job and encouraged marginal workers to find other things to do with their time, like care for their kids. But most of the decline appears to be the predictable result of an aging country that is waiting longer to enter the workforce because we're spending more time in school. And, since one of those things (aging) is inevitable and the other (school) is arguably good, it's hard to see how the low participation rate is the president's fault.

In a way, this graph below—which, at first glance, seems innocuous and even a little boring—offers a perfect solution to the participation puzzle. It shows that young people are working less (because they're in school) and it shows that old people are working more than they used to, but still much less than other workers (because they're retired).

more

Interesting chart that shows that the demographics that should be working will show a decline and has shown a decline. Only ones on the increase are those over 55. So the left will defend Obama by saying the retirees are the problem when in fact their participation rate, those of retirement age, will increase.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The place where we're really missing workers is in the 16-24 cohort, where there's a 4.3-million-person hole.



What accounts for it? School, mostly.

After demographics, the decline in participation among young people is, by far, the leading factor in the overall decline in participation. If we raised our participation rate to 1992 levels today, the labor force would grow immediately by 6.7 million people—and, as you see, 4.3 million of those workers would be under 24. The "missing workers" in the economy are mostly young.

And they're mostly in high school or college. Education enrollment jumped four percentage points in the four years after the recession started, "essentially accounting for nearly all of the decline in the youth [participation]," according to a 2013 paper by Christopher J. Erceg and Andrew T. Levin. Higher college enrollment also accounted for about one-third of the decline among prime-age workers (25-54), too. As you can see, high-school and college completion are soaring, and people in school are considerably less likely work.



The recession, too, has affected the participation rate through various channels. There are about a million discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force; Social Security Disability payments are up for the 55+ cohort, which typically takes those workers out of the job hunt; and a weak labor market can nudge young people back to school. But the decline in participation is mostly a combination of demographics and scholastics. We're entering the workforce later, staying longer, and getting older. The president can beg Congress to spend/cut/deregulate or whatever your particular policy-verb-of-choice may be, but it's fairly clear that we're up against mighty forces—age and education trends—that will resist quick fixes.

 

[Bfgrn]

If anything, you deliver them for somebody else. You're too stupid to hold a business together. In fact, you're too stupid to hold down a job, other than general labor.

I am enjoying this discussion. You are clearly jealous. When are you going to tell me what you do for a living?

Yeah, I'm just green with envy, Boss. I've always wanted to have a business cashing welfare checks.

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Republicans have to learn how to read and write first.

Does you mom know you are up this early?

You men that Republicans can not read or write but took over all the evil corporations? Quite a feat.

What is a 'you mom'?

 

[Freewill]

I am enjoying this discussion. You are clearly jealous. When are you going to tell me what you do for a living?

Yeah, I'm just green with envy, Boss. I've always wanted to have a business cashing welfare checks.

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Republicans have to learn how to read and write first.

Does you mom know you are up this early?

You men that Republicans can not read or write but took over all the evil corporations? Quite a feat.

What is a 'you mom'?

Oops, should have said yo momma.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah, I'm just green with envy, Boss. I've always wanted to have a business cashing welfare checks.

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Republicans have to learn how to read and write first.

Does you mom know you are up this early?

You men that Republicans can not read or write but took over all the evil corporations? Quite a feat.

What is a 'you mom'?

Oops, should have said yo momma.

Oh, how cute, a racial slur. How intelligent...

 

[Freewill]

Should be enough in these articles to clearly see the country that Obama has built.

92,898,000 Americans Not Working...

Labor Force Participation Rate at 37-Year-Low...

Record 56,023,000 Women Not in Labor Force...

Black unemployment rate nearly twice national average...

Net Employment Gains Since Recession Went To Foreign-Born...

No, Obama's Not to Blame for Our Historically Pathetic Participation Rate
Father Time and colleges are

In December, the U.S. participation rate—that's the share of the working-age population that's working or looking to work—dropped to its lowest percentage in four decades. In Washington, bad news means somebody must be blamed, so some Republicans (e.g.: Rep. Lynn Jenkins and Rep. Marsha Blackburn) have decided that someone is President Obama.

Unlike the country's high unemployment and slow job-creation, our low participation rate (the lowest since 1978, to be exact) is sometimes considered something of a mystery. But upon examination, it's really not that mysterious. The recession has discouraged many people from looking for a job and encouraged marginal workers to find other things to do with their time, like care for their kids. But most of the decline appears to be the predictable result of an aging country that is waiting longer to enter the workforce because we're spending more time in school. And, since one of those things (aging) is inevitable and the other (school) is arguably good, it's hard to see how the low participation rate is the president's fault.

In a way, this graph below—which, at first glance, seems innocuous and even a little boring—offers a perfect solution to the participation puzzle. It shows that young people are working less (because they're in school) and it shows that old people are working more than they used to, but still much less than other workers (because they're retired).

more

Interesting chart that shows that the demographics that should be working will show a decline and has shown a decline. Only ones on the increase are those over 55. So the left will defend Obama by saying the retirees are the problem when in fact their participation rate, those of retirement age, will increase.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The place where we're really missing workers is in the 16-24 cohort, where there's a 4.3-million-person hole.



What accounts for it? School, mostly.

After demographics, the decline in participation among young people is, by far, the leading factor in the overall decline in participation. If we raised our participation rate to 1992 levels today, the labor force would grow immediately by 6.7 million people—and, as you see, 4.3 million of those workers would be under 24. The "missing workers" in the economy are mostly young.

And they're mostly in high school or college. Education enrollment jumped four percentage points in the four years after the recession started, "essentially accounting for nearly all of the decline in the youth [participation]," according to a 2013 paper by Christopher J. Erceg and Andrew T. Levin. Higher college enrollment also accounted for about one-third of the decline among prime-age workers (25-54), too. As you can see, high-school and college completion are soaring, and people in school are considerably less likely work.



The recession, too, has affected the participation rate through various channels. There are about a million discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force; Social Security Disability payments are up for the 55+ cohort, which typically takes those workers out of the job hunt; and a weak labor market can nudge young people back to school. But the decline in participation is mostly a combination of demographics and scholastics. We're entering the workforce later, staying longer, and getting older. The president can beg Congress to spend/cut/deregulate or whatever your particular policy-verb-of-choice may be, but it's fairly clear that we're up against mighty forces—age and education trends—that will resist quick fixes.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

It appears to me that your last chart does not necessarily support your contention. It appears to me to be a chart comparing Male/Female educational levels not the percentage of the population.

Which is meaningless unless woman, and men, are getting degrees in fields that are in demand. An English degree, even advanced, might land you a decent job, an engineering degree almost guaranteed especially for women and minorities.

I am also thinking that maybe men have seen this treand and are going for vocational training which will also land a decent job.

Here is a link to information which may or may not support your contention:

College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2013 High School Graduates

 

[Freewill]

You do know the difference between a democrat and a republican, or one difference?

Republicans sign their checks on the front, democrats on the back.

Republicans have to learn how to read and write first.

Does you mom know you are up this early?

You men that Republicans can not read or write but took over all the evil corporations? Quite a feat.

What is a 'you mom'?

Oops, should have said yo momma.

Oh, how cute, a racial slur. How intelligent...

How, other then projection, do you get that to be a racial slur?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Good links. Liberals try to minimize these numbers by claiming that Bush left Obama with a horribly damaged economy and that that's why Obama's recovery has been weaker and slower than previous recoveries.

But that's simply false. Bush opposed and tried to stop the federal policies that did the most to cause the Great Recession, i.e., Freddie and Fannie's securing or financing over $1 trillion in high-risk (sub-prime) home loans, which led to the housing collapse and the financial meltdown. If Freddie and Fannie had not intervened in such a disastrous way, the amount of toxic assets would have been a fraction of what they were because there would have been drastically fewer sub-prime mortgages to bundle into toxic assets in the first place.

 

[Bfgrn]

Should be enough in these articles to clearly see the country that Obama has built.

92,898,000 Americans Not Working...

Labor Force Participation Rate at 37-Year-Low...

Record 56,023,000 Women Not in Labor Force...

Black unemployment rate nearly twice national average...

Net Employment Gains Since Recession Went To Foreign-Born...

No, Obama's Not to Blame for Our Historically Pathetic Participation Rate
Father Time and colleges are

In December, the U.S. participation rate—that's the share of the working-age population that's working or looking to work—dropped to its lowest percentage in four decades. In Washington, bad news means somebody must be blamed, so some Republicans (e.g.: Rep. Lynn Jenkins and Rep. Marsha Blackburn) have decided that someone is President Obama.

Unlike the country's high unemployment and slow job-creation, our low participation rate (the lowest since 1978, to be exact) is sometimes considered something of a mystery. But upon examination, it's really not that mysterious. The recession has discouraged many people from looking for a job and encouraged marginal workers to find other things to do with their time, like care for their kids. But most of the decline appears to be the predictable result of an aging country that is waiting longer to enter the workforce because we're spending more time in school. And, since one of those things (aging) is inevitable and the other (school) is arguably good, it's hard to see how the low participation rate is the president's fault.

In a way, this graph below—which, at first glance, seems innocuous and even a little boring—offers a perfect solution to the participation puzzle. It shows that young people are working less (because they're in school) and it shows that old people are working more than they used to, but still much less than other workers (because they're retired).

more

Interesting chart that shows that the demographics that should be working will show a decline and has shown a decline. Only ones on the increase are those over 55. So the left will defend Obama by saying the retirees are the problem when in fact their participation rate, those of retirement age, will increase.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The place where we're really missing workers is in the 16-24 cohort, where there's a 4.3-million-person hole.



What accounts for it? School, mostly.

After demographics, the decline in participation among young people is, by far, the leading factor in the overall decline in participation. If we raised our participation rate to 1992 levels today, the labor force would grow immediately by 6.7 million people—and, as you see, 4.3 million of those workers would be under 24. The "missing workers" in the economy are mostly young.

And they're mostly in high school or college. Education enrollment jumped four percentage points in the four years after the recession started, "essentially accounting for nearly all of the decline in the youth [participation]," according to a 2013 paper by Christopher J. Erceg and Andrew T. Levin. Higher college enrollment also accounted for about one-third of the decline among prime-age workers (25-54), too. As you can see, high-school and college completion are soaring, and people in school are considerably less likely work.



The recession, too, has affected the participation rate through various channels. There are about a million discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force; Social Security Disability payments are up for the 55+ cohort, which typically takes those workers out of the job hunt; and a weak labor market can nudge young people back to school. But the decline in participation is mostly a combination of demographics and scholastics. We're entering the workforce later, staying longer, and getting older. The president can beg Congress to spend/cut/deregulate or whatever your particular policy-verb-of-choice may be, but it's fairly clear that we're up against mighty forces—age and education trends—that will resist quick fixes.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

It appears to me that your last chart does not necessarily support your contention. It appears to me to be a chart comparing Male/Female educational levels not the percentage of the population.

Which is meaningless unless woman, and men, are getting degrees in fields that are in demand. An English degree, even advanced, might land you a decent job, an engineering degree almost guaranteed especially for women and minorities.

I am also thinking that maybe men have seen this treand and are going for vocational training which will also land a decent job.

Here is a link to information which may or may not support your contention:

College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2013 High School Graduates

From your link.

In October 2013, 65.9 percent of 2013 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Recent high school graduates not enrolled in college in October 2013 were over twice as likely as enrolled graduates to be working or looking for work--74.2 percent compared with 34.1 percent.

 

[Freewill]

Should be enough in these articles to clearly see the country that Obama has built.

92,898,000 Americans Not Working...

Labor Force Participation Rate at 37-Year-Low...

Record 56,023,000 Women Not in Labor Force...

Black unemployment rate nearly twice national average...

Net Employment Gains Since Recession Went To Foreign-Born...

No, Obama's Not to Blame for Our Historically Pathetic Participation Rate
Father Time and colleges are

In December, the U.S. participation rate—that's the share of the working-age population that's working or looking to work—dropped to its lowest percentage in four decades. In Washington, bad news means somebody must be blamed, so some Republicans (e.g.: Rep. Lynn Jenkins and Rep. Marsha Blackburn) have decided that someone is President Obama.

Unlike the country's high unemployment and slow job-creation, our low participation rate (the lowest since 1978, to be exact) is sometimes considered something of a mystery. But upon examination, it's really not that mysterious. The recession has discouraged many people from looking for a job and encouraged marginal workers to find other things to do with their time, like care for their kids. But most of the decline appears to be the predictable result of an aging country that is waiting longer to enter the workforce because we're spending more time in school. And, since one of those things (aging) is inevitable and the other (school) is arguably good, it's hard to see how the low participation rate is the president's fault.

In a way, this graph below—which, at first glance, seems innocuous and even a little boring—offers a perfect solution to the participation puzzle. It shows that young people are working less (because they're in school) and it shows that old people are working more than they used to, but still much less than other workers (because they're retired).

more

Interesting chart that shows that the demographics that should be working will show a decline and has shown a decline. Only ones on the increase are those over 55. So the left will defend Obama by saying the retirees are the problem when in fact their participation rate, those of retirement age, will increase.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The place where we're really missing workers is in the 16-24 cohort, where there's a 4.3-million-person hole.



What accounts for it? School, mostly.

After demographics, the decline in participation among young people is, by far, the leading factor in the overall decline in participation. If we raised our participation rate to 1992 levels today, the labor force would grow immediately by 6.7 million people—and, as you see, 4.3 million of those workers would be under 24. The "missing workers" in the economy are mostly young.

And they're mostly in high school or college. Education enrollment jumped four percentage points in the four years after the recession started, "essentially accounting for nearly all of the decline in the youth [participation]," according to a 2013 paper by Christopher J. Erceg and Andrew T. Levin. Higher college enrollment also accounted for about one-third of the decline among prime-age workers (25-54), too. As you can see, high-school and college completion are soaring, and people in school are considerably less likely work.



The recession, too, has affected the participation rate through various channels. There are about a million discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force; Social Security Disability payments are up for the 55+ cohort, which typically takes those workers out of the job hunt; and a weak labor market can nudge young people back to school. But the decline in participation is mostly a combination of demographics and scholastics. We're entering the workforce later, staying longer, and getting older. The president can beg Congress to spend/cut/deregulate or whatever your particular policy-verb-of-choice may be, but it's fairly clear that we're up against mighty forces—age and education trends—that will resist quick fixes.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

It appears to me that your last chart does not necessarily support your contention. It appears to me to be a chart comparing Male/Female educational levels not the percentage of the population.

Which is meaningless unless woman, and men, are getting degrees in fields that are in demand. An English degree, even advanced, might land you a decent job, an engineering degree almost guaranteed especially for women and minorities.

I am also thinking that maybe men have seen this treand and are going for vocational training which will also land a decent job.

Here is a link to information which may or may not support your contention:

College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2013 High School Graduates

From your link.

In October 2013, 65.9 percent of 2013 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Recent high school graduates not enrolled in college in October 2013 were over twice as likely as enrolled graduates to be working or looking for work--74.2 percent compared with 34.1 percent.

So, how does that support the contention made?

 

[Bfgrn]

Good links. Liberals try to minimize these numbers by claiming that Bush left Obama with a horribly damaged economy and that that's why Obama's recovery has been weaker and slower than previous recoveries.

But that's simply false. Bush opposed and tried to stop the federal policies that did the most to cause the Great Recession, i.e., Freddie and Fannie's securing or financing over $1 trillion in high-risk (sub-prime) home loans, which led to the housing collapse and the financial meltdown. If Freddie and Fannie had not intervened in such a disastrous way, the amount of toxic assets would have been a fraction of what they were because there would have been drastically fewer sub-prime mortgages to bundle into toxic assets in the first place.

Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing collapse or the financial meltdown...NOW WHAT???

As for Bush, did you forget his 'Ownership society"?

 

[Bfgrn]

No, Obama's Not to Blame for Our Historically Pathetic Participation Rate
Father Time and colleges are

In December, the U.S. participation rate—that's the share of the working-age population that's working or looking to work—dropped to its lowest percentage in four decades. In Washington, bad news means somebody must be blamed, so some Republicans (e.g.: Rep. Lynn Jenkins and Rep. Marsha Blackburn) have decided that someone is President Obama.

Unlike the country's high unemployment and slow job-creation, our low participation rate (the lowest since 1978, to be exact) is sometimes considered something of a mystery. But upon examination, it's really not that mysterious. The recession has discouraged many people from looking for a job and encouraged marginal workers to find other things to do with their time, like care for their kids. But most of the decline appears to be the predictable result of an aging country that is waiting longer to enter the workforce because we're spending more time in school. And, since one of those things (aging) is inevitable and the other (school) is arguably good, it's hard to see how the low participation rate is the president's fault.

In a way, this graph below—which, at first glance, seems innocuous and even a little boring—offers a perfect solution to the participation puzzle. It shows that young people are working less (because they're in school) and it shows that old people are working more than they used to, but still much less than other workers (because they're retired).

more

Interesting chart that shows that the demographics that should be working will show a decline and has shown a decline. Only ones on the increase are those over 55. So the left will defend Obama by saying the retirees are the problem when in fact their participation rate, those of retirement age, will increase.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The place where we're really missing workers is in the 16-24 cohort, where there's a 4.3-million-person hole.



What accounts for it? School, mostly.

After demographics, the decline in participation among young people is, by far, the leading factor in the overall decline in participation. If we raised our participation rate to 1992 levels today, the labor force would grow immediately by 6.7 million people—and, as you see, 4.3 million of those workers would be under 24. The "missing workers" in the economy are mostly young.

And they're mostly in high school or college. Education enrollment jumped four percentage points in the four years after the recession started, "essentially accounting for nearly all of the decline in the youth [participation]," according to a 2013 paper by Christopher J. Erceg and Andrew T. Levin. Higher college enrollment also accounted for about one-third of the decline among prime-age workers (25-54), too. As you can see, high-school and college completion are soaring, and people in school are considerably less likely work.



The recession, too, has affected the participation rate through various channels. There are about a million discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force; Social Security Disability payments are up for the 55+ cohort, which typically takes those workers out of the job hunt; and a weak labor market can nudge young people back to school. But the decline in participation is mostly a combination of demographics and scholastics. We're entering the workforce later, staying longer, and getting older. The president can beg Congress to spend/cut/deregulate or whatever your particular policy-verb-of-choice may be, but it's fairly clear that we're up against mighty forces—age and education trends—that will resist quick fixes.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

It appears to me that your last chart does not necessarily support your contention. It appears to me to be a chart comparing Male/Female educational levels not the percentage of the population.

Which is meaningless unless woman, and men, are getting degrees in fields that are in demand. An English degree, even advanced, might land you a decent job, an engineering degree almost guaranteed especially for women and minorities.

I am also thinking that maybe men have seen this treand and are going for vocational training which will also land a decent job.

Here is a link to information which may or may not support your contention:

College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2013 High School Graduates

From your link.

In October 2013, 65.9 percent of 2013 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Recent high school graduates not enrolled in college in October 2013 were over twice as likely as enrolled graduates to be working or looking for work--74.2 percent compared with 34.1 percent.

So, how does that support the contention made?

Is there an adult in your trailer that can help you?

A high percentage of high school graduates are enrolled in college. And they are half as likely to be working or looking for work.

 

[jknowgood]

One nutter after another......desperate to soothe their butthurt over the fact that the US economy has improved under the guidance of President Barack Hussein Obama.

It infuriates the nutters that the President took that steaming pile of shit Bush left for him and has put this country back on the right track, despite the right's attempt to obstruct anything and everything he tried to do. Great job Mister President!

Gruber loves people like yourself.

 

[jknowgood]

Probably sucks more to be one of the 94 million no longer in the work force.

Well, it does suck to be disabled the way the Right insult them, and students over 16 who stay in school probably think school sucks, but the Right tell us that being a stay at home spouse is a higher calling than work whenever the Feminists encourage women to join the work force, and it certainly doesn't suck to retire after you've worked all your life.

You've spent too much time in your mommy's basement, get a fucking job, you leech.

Butt kissing is high on this one. You're desperately reaching for straws. You cannot refute the fact that the work force precipitation is at a 37 year low. You know all the excuses you are giving also effected every other president the same, but they didn't fail as bad as Obama has. Not even Carter.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A thank you to the Great President Obama ...

 

[jknowgood]

Should be enough in these articles to clearly see the country that Obama has built.

92,898,000 Americans Not Working...

Labor Force Participation Rate at 37-Year-Low...

Record 56,023,000 Women Not in Labor Force...

Black unemployment rate nearly twice national average...

Net Employment Gains Since Recession Went To Foreign-Born...

No, Obama's Not to Blame for Our Historically Pathetic Participation Rate
Father Time and colleges are

In December, the U.S. participation rate—that's the share of the working-age population that's working or looking to work—dropped to its lowest percentage in four decades. In Washington, bad news means somebody must be blamed, so some Republicans (e.g.: Rep. Lynn Jenkins and Rep. Marsha Blackburn) have decided that someone is President Obama.

Unlike the country's high unemployment and slow job-creation, our low participation rate (the lowest since 1978, to be exact) is sometimes considered something of a mystery. But upon examination, it's really not that mysterious. The recession has discouraged many people from looking for a job and encouraged marginal workers to find other things to do with their time, like care for their kids. But most of the decline appears to be the predictable result of an aging country that is waiting longer to enter the workforce because we're spending more time in school. And, since one of those things (aging) is inevitable and the other (school) is arguably good, it's hard to see how the low participation rate is the president's fault.

In a way, this graph below—which, at first glance, seems innocuous and even a little boring—offers a perfect solution to the participation puzzle. It shows that young people are working less (because they're in school) and it shows that old people are working more than they used to, but still much less than other workers (because they're retired).

more

So by your explanation, the recession isn't Bush's fault? Since nothing is Obama's fault.

 

[Freewill]

A thank you to the Great President Obama ...

How many did Obama hire?