Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[pinqy]

No, it's a fact that high schoolers who don't want to work are among those 86.5 million who choose to be out of the labor force. It's a fact that baby boomers who retire are among them. It's a fact that housewives and househusbands who choose not to work are among them.

It's a fact you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

No it wasn't changed. I know you have never seen anything reputable claiming that, so either you're flat out lying or you don't care if it's actually true. Research: you will find no changes to definition under Obama

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you made an assumption not based in fact.

No, it's a fact that high schoolers who don't want to work are among those 86.5 million who choose to be out of the labor force. It's a fact that baby boomers who retire are among them. It's a fact that housewives and househusbands who choose not to work are among them.

It's a fact you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It was
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

 

[kaz]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Yes, under W people still hoped they could get jobs, under Obama they decided they can't and gave up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a fact you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

No it wasn't changed. I know you have never seen anything reputable claiming that, so either you're flat out lying or you don't care if it's actually true. Research: you will find no changes to definition under Obama

Yes it was again you are wrong
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

 

[kaz]

Yeah it's not like what happened yesterday affects us today...

Yesterday? That effects us a lot. Six years ago when W was President? That just shows how desperate you are to evade Obama's abysmal record.

 

[Yarddog]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

The stats are false. They stopped looking for work . the government needs to loosen things up to make it easier for people to start new businesses and leave their wealth to their kids. this will actually create more incentive. places like Detroit need special Tax breaks for New businesses, special incentives to actually make it worth opening up there, if even for a temporary time period. Bring some big corporations back as well by giving them better incentives than they are getting overseas. The cost of hiring unskilled labor from within Detroit would be extremely high for any corporation until people were trained and some positive attitudes could take root again, but eventually you could bring money back into the city without it being government handouts

 

[Moonglow]

The record pumping of oil is because of the Energy Act of 2005...

 

[pinqy]

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

No it wasn't changed. I know you have never seen anything reputable claiming that, so either you're flat out lying or you don't care if it's actually true. Research: you will find no changes to definition under Obama

Yes it was again you are wrong
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

I didn't say definitions never changed (though not in the Labor Force has always meant no t in the Labor Force) .The last (minor) change was in 1994. Before then people waiting to start a new job were classified as unemployed whether not they had looked for work in the last four weeks.
Major changes were made to the definitions of part time for economic reasons and Discouraged workers, and the new category of marginally attached was introduced.
But again, that was 20 years ago. Not under Obama as you falsely claimed

 

[kaz]

The record pumping of oil is because of the Energy Act of 2005...

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

 

[Moonglow]

The record pumping of oil is because of the Energy Act of 2005...

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

The big Jew in the sky...

 

[kaz]

The record pumping of oil is because of the Energy Act of 2005...

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

The big Jew in the sky...

OK, but we don't hear the voices. This is like the Rush Limbaugh show. He tells us what the voices are saying to him, that might give a bit of context to your posts.

 

[Moonglow]

The record pumping of oil is because of the Energy Act of 2005...

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

The big Jew in the sky...

OK, but we don't hear the voices. This is like the Rush Limbaugh show. He tells us what the voices are saying to him, that might give a bit of context to your posts.

I don't reveal that, it would make me look crazy....

 

[kaz]

The record pumping of oil is because of the Energy Act of 2005...

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

The big Jew in the sky...

OK, but we don't hear the voices. This is like the Rush Limbaugh show. He tells us what the voices are saying to him, that might give a bit of context to your posts.

I don't reveal that, it would make me look crazy....

I hear you, you wouldn't want that to happen...

 

[mudwhistle]

You asked every one of them, right?
Typically after a recession the UE rate goes up, as those discouraged people enter the workforce. That didnt happen this time. Why? People didnt perceive any value in looking for work, remaining discouraged. Or the incentives not to work were greater than the incentives to work.
Either way the labor situaiton now sucks. Household income sucks. Household wealth sucks. And it is having repercussions throughout the economy as people put off getting married, starting businesses, etc.
A cycle of trickle up poverty, thanks to the Democrats.

Why would I ask any of them? That's the BLS's job, not mine. I just reference their numbers.

No, you made an assumption not based in fact.

No, it's a fact that high schoolers who don't want to work are among those 86.5 million who choose to be out of the labor force. It's a fact that baby boomers who retire are among them. It's a fact that housewives and househusbands who choose not to work are among them.

It's a fact you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's also a pure speculation. There is no way on Earth they could have asked every unemployed person the reason they aren't working. They only used a small sample to base a rough idea from.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

No it wasn't changed. I know you have never seen anything reputable claiming that, so either you're flat out lying or you don't care if it's actually true. Research: you will find no changes to definition under Obama

Yes it was again you are wrong
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

I didn't say definitions never changed (though not in the Labor Force has always meant no t in the Labor Force) .The last (minor) change was in 1994. Before then people waiting to start a new job were classified as unemployed whether not they had looked for work in the last four weeks.
Major changes were made to the definitions of part time for economic reasons and Discouraged workers, and the new category of marginally attached was introduced.
But again, that was 20 years ago. Not under Obama as you falsely claimed

Shut the **** up dumb ass Do you see the bold those are your words.

 

[pinqy]

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

No it wasn't changed. I know you have never seen anything reputable claiming that, so either you're flat out lying or you don't care if it's actually true. Research: you will find no changes to definition under Obama

Yes it was again you are wrong
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

I didn't say definitions never changed (though not in the Labor Force has always meant no t in the Labor Force) .The last (minor) change was in 1994. Before then people waiting to start a new job were classified as unemployed whether not they had looked for work in the last four weeks.
Major changes were made to the definitions of part time for economic reasons and Discouraged workers, and the new category of marginally attached was introduced.
But again, that was 20 years ago. Not under Obama as you falsely claimed

Shut the **** up dumb ass Do you see the bold those are your words.

It wasn't changed under Obama as you claimed.
We weren't talking about ever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

No it wasn't changed. I know you have never seen anything reputable claiming that, so either you're flat out lying or you don't care if it's actually true. Research: you will find no changes to definition under Obama

Yes it was again you are wrong
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

I didn't say definitions never changed (though not in the Labor Force has always meant no t in the Labor Force) .The last (minor) change was in 1994. Before then people waiting to start a new job were classified as unemployed whether not they had looked for work in the last four weeks.
Major changes were made to the definitions of part time for economic reasons and Discouraged workers, and the new category of marginally attached was introduced.
But again, that was 20 years ago. Not under Obama as you falsely claimed

Shut the **** up dumb ass Do you see the bold those are your words.

It wasn't changed under Obama as you claimed.
We weren't talking about ever.

You have already lost any credibility that you may have had shut the **** up liar.

 

[pinqy]

Why would I ask any of them? That's the BLS's job, not mine. I just reference their numbers.

No, you made an assumption not based in fact.

No, it's a fact that high schoolers who don't want to work are among those 86.5 million who choose to be out of the labor force. It's a fact that baby boomers who retire are among them. It's a fact that housewives and househusbands who choose not to work are among them.

It's a fact you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's also a pure speculation. There is no way on Earth they could have asked every unemployed person the reason they aren't working. They only used a small sample to base a rough idea from.

So basically you're saying the whole unemployment rate and labor force stats are a "rough idea." Do you have as ny better data?

 

[pinqy]

No it wasn't changed. I know you have never seen anything reputable claiming that, so either you're flat out lying or you don't care if it's actually true. Research: you will find no changes to definition under Obama

Yes it was again you are wrong
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

I didn't say definitions never changed (though not in the Labor Force has always meant no t in the Labor Force) .The last (minor) change was in 1994. Before then people waiting to start a new job were classified as unemployed whether not they had looked for work in the last four weeks.
Major changes were made to the definitions of part time for economic reasons and Discouraged workers, and the new category of marginally attached was introduced.
But again, that was 20 years ago. Not under Obama as you falsely claimed

Shut the **** up dumb ass Do you see the bold those are your words.

It wasn't changed under Obama as you claimed.
We weren't talking about ever.

You have already lost any credibility that you may have had shut the **** up liar.

And those changes under Obama that you claimed?
Oh you couldn't' find any

 

[Faun]

You don't know anything, do you? There's more than 102 million not working. I assume you're talking about the 92.6 million who are not in the labor force ... yeah, so? Among those 92.6 million are high schoolers who don't want to work, baby boomers who don't want to work, housewives (and house husbands) who don't want to work, college students who don't want to work, people on disability who can't or don't want to work, people on welfare who don't want to work, disabled military vets who don't can't, etc...

Only about 6 million (about 2% of civilian noninstitutional population) of them want a job.

You asked every one of them, right?
Typically after a recession the UE rate goes up, as those discouraged people enter the workforce. That didnt happen this time. Why? People didnt perceive any value in looking for work, remaining discouraged. Or the incentives not to work were greater than the incentives to work.
Either way the labor situaiton now sucks. Household income sucks. Household wealth sucks. And it is having repercussions throughout the economy as people put off getting married, starting businesses, etc.
A cycle of trickle up poverty, thanks to the Democrats.

Why would I ask any of them? That's the BLS's job, not mine. I just reference their numbers.

No, you made an assumption not based in fact.

No, it's a fact that high schoolers who don't want to work are among those 86.5 million who choose to be out of the labor force. It's a fact that baby boomers who retire are among them. It's a fact that housewives and househusbands who choose not to work are among them.

You don't even have the number right so how in the hell can you have anything else right? It's over 92 million.

Wow. You are clearly 51 cards short of a full deck. So now you say the number is over 92 million and that I don't have the right number?? Let's view the replay on this red-flag challenge moment, shall we (and see where that 92 million figure came from)?

bigrebnc1775: "Americans not working 92 million"

Faun: "You don't know anything, do you? There's more than 102 million not working."​

Why, look at that. Turns out, you're the one who posted that 92 million figure and I'm the one who corrected you, stating it was more than 92 million.

Seems your "senior moment" is overturned upon review.