US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[leftwinger]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!


Is their anything to "leftish talking point" LFPR is down due to baby boomer high retirement rate? I would say many between 55-65 are forced out but I only know what I have witness. Not to mention 30mil+ illegals ..... see construction industry.

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

 

[Faun]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

 

[leftwinger]

LFPR is big. Supply & Demand. 10s' of million forced out, need or want to work. Cannot. those working end up paid less?

 

[Dale Smith]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

 

[Markle]

What do we need to do?

Well, for starters...we need to gradually raise interest rates to something sane. I say that for two reasons. First of all it will give us a real idea of how strong the economy really is...but more importantly...if we do have another financial crisis we'll have that tool (lowering interest rates) to combat it. As it stands right now...if we have another recession...our "quiver" of economic arrows to address that is basically empty. All we've done for the past eight years is artificially prop up the stock market which allowed wealthy people who had credit to invest with to make a fortune. You want to know why there is such "inequality" between the wealthy and the Lower Class? It's because of things like what the Fed has done with interest rates. Poor people didn't gain from the stock market rebound...wealthy people sure as heck did!

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

Okay.

Reagan's GDP his last year in office was 7

Reagan's Unemployment rate was 5.5%, down from a maximum of 9.7%

Labor Participation Rate was 65.8% in April of 1988 and it is 63.0% under the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama.

Any way you want to describe it, President Obama's economy is another Carter malaise compared to that of President Reagan.

More?

 

[Faun]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

 

[Markle]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

The unemployment rate when President Kennedy took office was 6.7%, highest in many years. The GDP was 3.5% which was down from 8.4% in 1959. So NO, the economy was NOT great when President John F. Kennedy took office.

 

[Markle]

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

 

[Markle]

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...

Well, me poor ignorant paid con tool, lets looked at that jobs saved statement. Do the expert understand the concept of "created or saved"?
"In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.

• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created."
Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created
Yup, they all know what it is. Only the bat shit crazy con world has been saying saved does not count. Which simply proves: They, and you, are liars, and they and you are apparently incapable of understanding that a saved job is the same as a created job in terms of unemployment.
Jesus, you are a waste of space, dipshit. If we wanted someone to parrot dogma, we could get a coppy machine.

Look at what you've posted, idiot child! You've got a CBO estimate of between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs "created or saved" and you can't see that there's a problem? You've got variances of over one and a half MILLION but you think those numbers should be taken as meaningful?

I don't know what's more amusing...that the Obama Administration thought they could fool anyone with the bullshit they put out...or that you FELL for the bullshit they put out!

Yes, well I am sure your estimate was much more precise, Oh, yeah, that's right. You made no estimate. Because you are a dishwasher, so you have no clue. You see, me poor little ignorant con tool, CBO always make upper and lower estimates and refine them as they get close. Dipshit. The only problem there is that you are an idiot.
Now I, unlike you, utilize the estimates and findings of published impartial sources. Experts. Nothing at all funny about that. No problem at all for thinking persons. Only problems for people like you who believe what they are told to believe.
Now, there was the term "created or saved". Sorry you have no integrity and as such can not admit the measurement exists among actual economic experts. Now, I know you prefer the bat shit crazy con web sites that lie as a normal course of activity. But, that is what you are supposed to post. Lies and bs.
I wold explain why the economists use the term saved, but it would be a waste of time with you. It does not have anything to do with your specialty (dish washing). Really, me boy, you are totally showing everyone your ignorance,
To others besides oldstyle:
paid con tools like oldstyle are paid to post dogma, and to kill any threads of discussion that does not parrot the right wing nonsense. That is what oldstyle has done for years. As you can see, he is incapable of discussion. You can prove your point rationally, and meaningfully to any thinking organism, but oldstyle, like all paid con tools, simply ignores the proof and continues on with his dogma. Not many people in the world are so short of class that they can do that, but con tools have that malady. Soon, he will just be posting personal attacks. Anything from keeping the thread from being meaningful.
You see, rationally, oldstyle is not capable of rational conversation, because rational conversation will question his right wing dogma.

 

[Dale Smith]

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing but corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

 

[Markle]

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.

That means you are a stupid DittoTard mindlessly parroting a Limbaugh Lie.

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

I provided the FACTS and the link. What was difficult for you to understand? I'll be happy to explain it to you.

 

[Rshermr]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

As you know...or should know, President Clinton never had a surplus. What APPEARED as a surplus was money going into the general fund from Social Security and Medicare withholding taxes.

Uh, read your post. It seems, me boy, that technically speaking, you are full of shit. You are providing untrue right wing talking points and calling them fact. You need to show a source, because your information is unsupported and simply incorrect. Here is an example of an impartial source, me boy:

"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Markle]

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.

 

[Rshermr]

Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.

Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?

Apparently, the unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Mark

Of course unemployment is only part of the picture. But unemployment is way down under Obama. So while there are still problems with the economy, unemployment isn't one of them as we are now at full employment.

Of course, you know you are wrong so why do you make such false statements? You might consider chucking the Kool Aid!

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat. Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.

You are in way over your head, me boy. The labor participation rate dropping 3% is not much of a problem normally, but economists have told us to expect it to drop and it did. And partially for reasons of the general economy. You seem to be insinuating it happened because a democratic president took over. But the truth, me boy, is that the downturn coincided with the great republican recession of 2008. Which caused a whole lot of unemployment as well as a large number of workers discouraged by same and waiting for improvement. Really, me boy, pretty obvious. Then, there was this other factor apparently you missed. Which was a whole large number of folks in the baby boom retiring early. Then, me poor ignorant tool, there were the results of being able to afford insurance outside of work under ACA. So, me boy, quit spreading gloom and doom about participation rates. Rather ignorant of you.
Oh, by the way, if you look at the rates at this time, you will find them improving. Must be Obama's influence, eh?????

 

[Dale Smith]

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.

There are so many posters here that should be nominated for "Moron Of The Year" on this board with Faun being one of them but Rshermr gets my vote...his flames are lame and he doesn't have a ******* clue either. His schtick is beyond lame.

 

[Markle]

Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?

Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....

[cue the Barney song...]

So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.

I never denied Bush warned Congress.

Now then, about my question which you intentionally avoided answering....

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!

Sorry, but I can't teach you something as basic as knowing Republicans controlled the House in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; and the Senate in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2001 -- the year Bush first began warning the Congress that reform of the GSEs was needed.

So for a third time, since you avoided answering twice now...

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

White House News

Setting the Record Straight

In Focus: Economy

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

 

[Markle]

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.

There are so many posters here that should be nominated for "Moron Of The Year" on this board with Faun being one of them but Rshermr gets my vote...his flames are lame and he doesn't have a ******* clue either. His schtick is beyond lame.

I only found this site a short while ago but in that short time, I agree with your assessment 100%.

 

[Rshermr]

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.

Really, me boy, personal attacks all you have left?? Truth is, he is less amusing than you, in my humble but correct opinion.

 

[Dale Smith]

Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.

Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?

Apparently, the unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Mark

Of course unemployment is only part of the picture. But unemployment is way down under Obama. So while there are still problems with the economy, unemployment isn't one of them as we are now at full employment.

Of course, you know you are wrong so why do you make such false statements? You might consider chucking the Kool Aid!

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat. Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.

You are in way over your head, me boy. The labor participation rate dropping 3% is not much of a problem normally, but economists hav told us to expect it to drop and it did. And partially for reasons of the general economy. You seem to be insinuating it happened because a democratic president took over. But the truth, me boy, is that the downturn coincided with the great republican recession of 2008. Which caused a whold lot of unemployment as well as a large number of workers discouraged by same and waiting for improvement. Really, me boy, pretty obvious. Then, there was this other factor apparently you missed. Which was a whole large number of folks in the baby boom retiring early. Then, me poor ignorant tool, there were the results of being able to afford insurance outside of work under ACA. So, me boy, quit spreading gloom and doom about participation rates. Rather ignorant of you.
Oh, by the way, if you look at the rates at this time, you will find them improving. Must be Obama's influence, eh?????

Let's be upfront, I am no fan of the Bush crime family that is thicker than thieves with the Clintons, but the fact that you have NO ******* clue as to what caused the housing bubble burst along with all the other "crashes" tells me right away that you are an intellectual lightweight and that you don't know a ******* thing about the fractional banking system, Promissory notes and the "boom and bust" cycles that they create in order to gain access to hard assets because bankruptcies and foreclosure are built right into this debt slavery system.

Spare us all your attitude of superiority...you are as naked a jaybird....you have got nothing.

 

[Markle]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

You're joking, right? If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?