|
Post by kashmir on May 4, 2014 7:46:02 GMT -5
Unemployment is still the highest its been since 1983. Some recovery. Really? Because the BLS disagrees with your statement. Just another time a Republican f**ked the country up.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on May 4, 2014 7:56:01 GMT -5
You need to take the day off and chill. Your blood pressure will thank you....
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on May 4, 2014 8:07:19 GMT -5
You need to take the day off and chill. Your blood pressure will thank you.... How about looking up those unemployment numbers? Rocketwolf made a statement that is just an outright lie. What say you?
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on May 4, 2014 8:31:51 GMT -5
Don't let your personal resentment to those guys consume you. Get out, enjoy the day, life is too short to be angry all the time....
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on May 4, 2014 8:36:52 GMT -5
Don't let your personal resentment to those guys consume you. Get out, enjoy the day, life is too short to be angry all the time.... I noticed you did not answer the question. Quite telling.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on May 4, 2014 10:00:15 GMT -5
Unemployment is still the highest its been since 1983. Some recovery. Not one much on honest posting are you? Download: Download as an Excel File Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3 1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3 1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7 1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3 1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3 1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4 1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5 1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5 1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6 1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4 1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0 2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3 2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9 2010 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4 2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5 2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9 2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7 2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 10:08:56 GMT -5
Frightening numbers, really. Only handouts and credit cards stop folks from rioting in streets. When a society resorts to credit to fund it's consumption, it becomes a sign of dysfunction. Unless one believes Krugman and most of our leadership - then it is the solution to enabling prosperity. It's easy to convince folk that consuming on someone elses dime is the key to prosperity for all. Easy credit has allowed employers to keep salaries low while still depending upon a consumer economy for profits. It's similar to small-town company scrip strategy writ large- back when a mine or factory would support a single small town, the only store would be company store accepting only company scrip. And the pay and prices were set so you'd always be in debt- ensuring loyal workers (well, steady workers) due to debt slavery. Though lenient bankruptcy laws now drive a large loophole through that-- and is rife with other problems.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 4, 2014 11:43:14 GMT -5
You need to take the day off and chill. Your blood pressure will thank you.... How about looking up those unemployment numbers? Rocketwolf made a statement that is just an outright lie. What say you? The comment Rocketwolf made is true, but misleading... and I'm sure he probably read it somewhere where it was published knowing it was misleading... (I tried to find it but couldn't)... no doubt, what they were talking about is the percentage of the workforce that is not working... (of which I am one, my wife is another)... which is not employed... making it appear that those individuals want to work... but can't find jobs... which is NOT true... about 68% of the "potential workforce," above the age of 16, is working... the other 32% is not... some of those are looking for a job, but the vast majority of them are like me... NOT looking for a job... (even "stay-at-home mothers/dads", which are increasing... are among those numbers... and the workforce "participation rate" has NOT been as low as 68% since around 1983... So, Rocketwolf and the Easton Star are a lot like Bill Clinton (and so many politicians) was... right, but misleading... and not really an outright lie...
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on May 4, 2014 13:38:22 GMT -5
How about looking up those unemployment numbers? Rocketwolf made a statement that is just an outright lie. What say you? The comment Rocketwolf made is true, but misleading... and I'm sure he probably read it somewhere where it was published knowing it was misleading... (I tried to find it but couldn't)... no doubt, what they were talking about is the percentage of the workforce that is not working... (of which I am one, my wife is another)... which is not employed... making it appear that those individuals want to work... but can't find jobs... which is NOT true... about 68% of the "potential workforce," above the age of 16, is working... the other 32% is not... some of those are looking for a job, but the vast majority of them are like me... NOT looking for a job... (even "stay-at-home mothers/dads", which are increasing... are among those numbers... and the workforce "participation rate" has NOT been as low as 68% since around 1983... So, Rocketwolf and the Easton Star are a lot like Bill Clinton (and so many politicians) was... right, but misleading... and not really an outright lie... So when the Unemployment rate is reported at 6.3% it isn't 6.3%. It really is up in the 10% like back in 1983? Okay got it.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 4, 2014 16:18:22 GMT -5
You need to take the day off and chill. Your blood pressure will thank you.... How about looking up those unemployment numbers? Rocketwolf made a statement that is just an outright lie. What say you? I saw it in the local paper the Easton Star DEMOCRAT so prove different.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 4, 2014 16:20:47 GMT -5
How about looking up those unemployment numbers? Rocketwolf made a statement that is just an outright lie. What say you? The comment Rocketwolf made is true, but misleading... and I'm sure he probably read it somewhere where it was published knowing it was misleading... (I tried to find it but couldn't)... no doubt, what they were talking about is the percentage of the workforce that is not working... (of which I am one, my wife is another)... which is not employed... making it appear that those individuals want to work... but can't find jobs... which is NOT true... about 68% of the "potential workforce," above the age of 16, is working... the other 32% is not... some of those are looking for a job, but the vast majority of them are like me... NOT looking for a job... (even "stay-at-home mothers/dads", which are increasing... are among those numbers... and the workforce "participation rate" has NOT been as low as 68% since around 1983... So, Rocketwolf and the Easton Star are a lot like Bill Clinton (and so many politicians) was... right, but misleading... and not really an outright lie... Correction the Easton Star DEMOCRAT
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on May 4, 2014 16:29:32 GMT -5
How about looking up those unemployment numbers? Rocketwolf made a statement that is just an outright lie. What say you? I saw it in the local paper the Easton Star DEMOCRAT so prove different. By all means use your numbers! I am sure no one will notice.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 4, 2014 16:32:57 GMT -5
While you use Obamas lies as gospel?
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on May 4, 2014 17:14:09 GMT -5
While you use Obamas lies as gospel? Where sir may we find the book, the Gospel According to Obama.. Oh wait, the DNC bookstore....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 17:37:27 GMT -5
Where is it located?
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on May 4, 2014 17:44:54 GMT -5
I'm sure every large US city has one for all its left leaning voters...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 17:46:22 GMT -5
Lol
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 4, 2014 19:19:23 GMT -5
The comment Rocketwolf made is true, but misleading... and I'm sure he probably read it somewhere where it was published knowing it was misleading... (I tried to find it but couldn't)... no doubt, what they were talking about is the percentage of the workforce that is not working... (of which I am one, my wife is another)... which is not employed... making it appear that those individuals want to work... but can't find jobs... which is NOT true... about 68% of the "potential workforce," above the age of 16, is working... the other 32% is not... some of those are looking for a job, but the vast majority of them are like me... NOT looking for a job... (even "stay-at-home mothers/dads", which are increasing... are among those numbers... and the workforce "participation rate" has NOT been as low as 68% since around 1983... So, Rocketwolf and the Easton Star are a lot like Bill Clinton (and so many politicians) was... right, but misleading... and not really an outright lie... So when the Unemployment rate is reported at 6.3% it isn't 6.3%. It really is up in the 10% like back in 1983? Okay got it. I don't think you read my comments... they were no doubt NOT talking bout the "unemployment rate"... they were talking about the percentage of the entire workforce over the age of 16 who were not working... without regard to WHY they were not working... and yes, I believe the current unemployment rate is 6.3%... figured the same way it has been for the last 40 years... surveying that 60,000 individuals...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 4, 2014 19:23:38 GMT -5
How about looking up those unemployment numbers? Rocketwolf made a statement that is just an outright lie. What say you? I saw it in the local paper the Easton Star DEMOCRAT so prove different. I can't find what you were talking about so I wont dispute what you heard... (doesn't make it true)... I will dispute what they likely meant... I'd wager it wasn't the unemployment rate that is reported on the first Friday of every month... it was higher in 1983 than it is now... it was the % of employable workers not in/in the workforce... 32% vs 68% respectively...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 4, 2014 19:24:48 GMT -5
The comment Rocketwolf made is true, but misleading... and I'm sure he probably read it somewhere where it was published knowing it was misleading... (I tried to find it but couldn't)... no doubt, what they were talking about is the percentage of the workforce that is not working... (of which I am one, my wife is another)... which is not employed... making it appear that those individuals want to work... but can't find jobs... which is NOT true... about 68% of the "potential workforce," above the age of 16, is working... the other 32% is not... some of those are looking for a job, but the vast majority of them are like me... NOT looking for a job... (even "stay-at-home mothers/dads", which are increasing... are among those numbers... and the workforce "participation rate" has NOT been as low as 68% since around 1983... So, Rocketwolf and the Easton Star are a lot like Bill Clinton (and so many politicians) was... right, but misleading... and not really an outright lie... Correction the Easton Star DEMOCRAT Yeah... I know... (I found it)... even a Democrat get's it wrong every now and then...
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on May 5, 2014 6:29:58 GMT -5
Correction the Easton Star DEMOCRAT Yeah... I know... (I found it)... even a Democrat get's it wrong every now and then... The number I believe you all are referring to was posted much earlier by me. An Ambrose Pritchard piece. The "number" refers to the labor participation rate. It is currently 62.8%. Folk who take an interest in this stuff find that significant. I won't give the definition of what the "labor participation rate" is since I would no doubt be called wrong by the resident wordsmith. But the good news is that finally the socialists and progressives are seeing their desires and hard work come to fruition. Since 1830 the efforts have been to shorten exposure to "work" and extend leisure. It seems the tree is genuinely bearing fruit!
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on May 5, 2014 7:17:57 GMT -5
While you use Obamas lies as gospel? It was the BLS numbers, but I suppose since there is a black guy in the White House now no one believes them.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 5, 2014 7:38:29 GMT -5
Yeah... I know... (I found it)... even a Democrat get's it wrong every now and then... The number I believe you all are referring to was posted much earlier by me. An Ambrose Pritchard piece. The "number" refers to the labor participation rate. It is currently 62.8%. Folk who take an interest in this stuff find that significant. I won't give the definition of what the "labor participation rate" is since I would no doubt be called wrong by the resident wordsmith. But the good news is that finally the socialists and progressives are seeing their desires and hard work come to fruition. Since 1830 the efforts have been to shorten exposure to "work" and extend leisure. It seems the tree is genuinely bearing fruit! I was referring to the numbers Rocketwolf said he had read in the Easton Star DEMOCRAT... I can't find the piece and likely he can't either... unless he had a hard copy of it... so I can't be sure what they were talking/right about... or wrong about... If "I" am the one you are referring to as the "resident wordsmith," I have already noted the basic definition of the "labor participation rate" here more than once...
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on May 5, 2014 7:41:56 GMT -5
The number I believe you all are referring to was posted much earlier by me. An Ambrose Pritchard piece. The "number" refers to the labor participation rate. It is currently 62.8%. Folk who take an interest in this stuff find that significant. I won't give the definition of what the "labor participation rate" is since I would no doubt be called wrong by the resident wordsmith. But the good news is that finally the socialists and progressives are seeing their desires and hard work come to fruition. Since 1830 the efforts have been to shorten exposure to "work" and extend leisure. It seems the tree is genuinely bearing fruit! I was referring to the numbers Rocketwolf said he had read in the Easton Star DEMOCRAT... I can't find the piece and likely he can't either... unless he had a hard copy of it... so I can't be sure what they were talking/right about... or wrong about... If "I" am the one you are referring to as the "resident wordsmith," I have already noted the basic definition of the "labor participation rate" here more than once... Must be the black guy in the White House.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 5, 2014 7:49:16 GMT -5
From the OP:
"The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April. The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October. The employment-population ratio showed no change over the month (58.9 percent) and has changed little over the year.
So people may cheer that the unemployment rate dropped but they would only do so out of ignorance. 288k have found jobs but an astounding 806k gave up on working.
----------------------------------------- I don't believe the article means 806K individuals "gave up on working"... as in "can't find a job"... I believe it means that they were simply no longer participants in the workforce for a number of reasons... some like me... retired, capable of working, but chooses not to work...
|
|