Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:02 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country? Back to Topics
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,751
Points:2,890,430
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 11:06:29 AM

How many people are actually unemployed in this country?

Look off to the far right side of the chart to see the hopefully not ever-increasing numbers of unemployed in this country.

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707

Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

If the "State of the Union is stronger (and getting stronger)" it will show up in these numbers. Use this topic to post links and opinions regarding Obama's (and Congress') handling of the economy as it relates to employment in this country.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,889
Points:340,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 10:31:40 AM

There are profits, and there are PROFITS.

teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,569
Points:863,325
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 10:25:59 AM

Because it's just SO much easier hiring and keeping track of that many more part-time employees.

Yes, it is also to make a profit, because without a profit, there are NO employees. Just ask a union whose demands ran a company out of business.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,889
Points:340,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 10:20:18 AM

"The high cost of ObamaCare has forced many employers to drop employees below the thirty hour threshold."

That's their story, and they're sticking to it.
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,569
Points:863,325
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 9:58:05 AM

I think it is more a question of UNDER employment.

The high cost of ObamaCare has forced many employers to drop employees below the thirty hour threshold.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 9:42:09 AM

"And occasionally infants work"

Somebody sure is buying' what he is shovelin'...

Sad to see somebody double down on such a ridiculous notion.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,889
Points:340,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 9:10:04 AM

"93 million or 172 million, they are unemployed. "

>>>The 93 million figure is meaningless bunk, just as my 172 million number is.



"And occasionally infants work."

Get real.




[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 3/16/2015 9:13:24 AM EST]
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 8:43:00 AM

Look up and see it: The title of this thread is "How many people are actually unemployed in this country?"

93 million or 172 million, they are unemployed.

And occasionally infants work. Ever seen commercials for baby products?
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,548
Points:478,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 1:22:54 PM

A lot of young adults are working; but can't make ends meet. They rely on possibly living with parents who are better off or government services, or both.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,889
Points:340,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 1:10:47 PM

"I don't think he even realizes the hyperbole he constantly posts - he thinks he has found 'fact'."

Well, the article does say "Opinion" in its title.

Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 12:08:26 PM

"The 93 million figure is meaningless bunk, just as my 172 million number is. Both figures arbitrarily include millions of people who can’t work, don’t want to work and don’t need to work."

LOL! 75 once again fails at fact-checking - or has the DJIA been up 4 straight days again?

I don't think he even realizes the hyperbole he constantly posts - he thinks he has found 'fact'.

MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,889
Points:340,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 6:31:26 PM

"If you like to follow the numbers, follow these:"

Before you follow those numbers too closely, take time to read the entire article, which continues on page 2 of the link:


"The fear that America will go broke if fewer than half of us are working is credible only if we ignore history, which shows that the percentage of Americans with a paid job has never gotten much above 50% (the record was 51% in January 2007).

It turns out that we’ve always had a lot of children, and old folks, and housewives to support. Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, the portion of Americans who had a paid job was always less than 40%. In 1962, it was just 36%.

I suppose you’re angry with me. Why should we count infants as unemployed? You’re right: We shouldn’t count infants as unemployed any more than we should count 85-year-olds. But that is what people do when they carp on about the 93 million adults who’ve “given up” on work.

The 93 million figure is meaningless bunk, just as my 172 million number is. Both figures arbitrarily include millions of people who can’t work, don’t want to work and don’t need to work."



Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 3:54:47 PM

"Wanna pull an AlGore, and demand a partial recount???"

Ah, so now that the right-favored 'Actual Unemployed' figure doesn't fit your narrative anymore, you are going to move the goal posts yet again to another empty statistic???

How predictable.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 2:15:10 PM

If you like to follow the numbers, follow these:

America is full of slackers and deadbeats who won’t work

"Only 46% of Americans Work"

"The unemployment rate isn’t 5.5%, as the government claims. The real unemployment rate is over 35%, they say, because about 102 million people aren’t working, including about 9 million who are officially counted as unemployed and the 93 million who’ve given up."

"It’s not 102 million who aren’t working; it’s 172 million!

"The government is hiding in plain sight the brutal fact that only 46% of Americans are working (148 million of a total population of 320 million)! If you consider everybody and not only the 250 million who are over 16 that the BLS counts, only 49% of us are in the labor force."

Wanna pull an AlGore, and demand a partial recount???
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2015 7:55:23 PM

"Weasle,

If dropping unemployment numbers meant more people were finding jobs instead of their government benefits running out, that would be a good thing."

Meaning you are still ignoring the other metrics I also posted in the other thread - AND the fact that your 'Actual Unemployed' number is also drastically decreased...



[Edited by: Weaslespit at 3/12/2015 7:56:45 PM EST]
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,751
Points:2,890,430
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2015 6:42:21 PM

Weasle,

If dropping unemployment numbers meant more people were finding jobs instead of their government benefits running out, that would be a good thing.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 9:32:21 PM

">>Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.<<

Hmmm...I see that unemployment dropped between 2003 and 2007, including a couple of pretty good years economically for the country, yet SNAP numbers continued to rise almost that entire time. Apparently, that isn't a "telling statistic" in your world."

Ouch - that one hurt...
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 1:57:47 PM

>>Even if you lay the 33.490 number on GWBush...<<

Which I didn't, as I simply used the number from January, 2009, his last month in office. However, if you want to base it on the fiscal year, which is what the annual numbers you quoted are, then you'd have to go by the number from the final month in FY 2009, which was September, 2009, and that number was 37.2 million.

 
>>Seen graphically, you can easily see the steep rise in 2009-2013.<<

Actually, the "steep rise" goes from early-mid 2008 through the end of 2011.

 
>>Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.<<

Hmmm...I see that unemployment dropped between 2003 and 2007, including a couple of pretty good years economically for the country, yet SNAP numbers continued to rise almost that entire time. Apparently, that isn't a "telling statistic" in your world.

 
>>And that's how 0bama got tagged "The Food Stamp President"<<

No, Obama got that tag from Newt Gingrich, who used it as a talking point in 2011 when he began campaigning for President. It sounded good to you righties, so you just keep repeating it.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 12:57:35 PM

Thanks for honing in on the year-by-year numbers.
Let's look a little closer at those, okay?
2008 - 28.223 Million on SNAP
2009 - 33.490   "   "   "
2010 - 40.302   "   "   "
2011 - 44.709  "   "   "
2012 - 46.609   "   "  "
2013 - 47.636  "   "   "
2014 - 46.536  "   "   "

Source: USDA website

Even if you lay the 33.490 number on GWBush, you get a huge increase, over 14 Million more people, added in the early years of the 0bama Administration.
Seen graphically, you can easily see the steep rise in 2009-2013.
You can also see SNAP participation (through 2012) charted with unemployment and people in poverty.
Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.

And that's how 0bama got tagged "The Food Stamp President"


[Edited by: I75at7AM at 2/19/2015 1:06:40 PM EST]
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,541
Points:3,386,935
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 10:32:30 PM

>>Here is the more telling statistic:

People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million<<

Gosh, I75, that sure might be a "telling statistic" if it were true.

However, in January, 2009, when Obama (yeah, that's his name - not "0") took office, there were 32.2 million people on Food Stamps, not the "26 million" you claim. And as of November, 2014, that number is 46.3 million, the same as it was 3 years ago and now on a downward trend. So, that's a 43.7% increase in just under 6 years.

Now, just for comparison's sake, let's take a look at George W. Bush. We already know that there were 32.2 million on Food Stamps in January, 2009. So, what was that number when Bush took office, in January, 2001? Well, that'd be 17.2 million, an increase of 86.9%. A number that had gone down since 1994 went up all but one year under Bush, with costs going up EVERY YEAR.

So, who should be considered the Food Stamp President - the guy with the 6.2% (and going down) annual increase, or the guy with the 8.1% annual increase? That would be George W. Bush - the Food Stamp President!!!

 

>>I see government dependents going up, in number.<<

As you can see from the links I provided above, those numbers haven't gone up in 3 years. No need to pretend those numbers are still going up.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 4:24:04 PM

"People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million

You show unemployment going down. I see government dependents going up, in number"

There it is! 'The Defelction'...

ROTFLOL!!! Thanks for not disappointing, 75. ;)

"Immigrants tend to be at the lower end of the wage scale, at least starting out, and most of those wage earners are eligible for government benefits (food stamps) even while employed."

And then to imply that all ~5 million of those who got jobs are low wage immigrants - wow. Partisan to a fault.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,889
Points:340,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:33:19 PM

"Here is the more telling statistic:"

Your statistic doesn't tell anything. A great many people on SNAP assistance already work (at jobs that won't pay enough to allow workers to feed themselves or their families); a great many are also children, and disabled, and elderly.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:45:13 PM

The weezil seems to be confused and has equated "more people with jobs" with "more taxpayers". The two groups are in no way mutual. Immigrants tend to be at the lower end of the wage scale, at least starting out, and most of those wage earners are eligible for government benefits (food stamps) even while employed.

>>>Anybody care to twist this statistic now as well since it clearly shows job growth?<<<

Here is the more telling statistic:

People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million

You show unemployment going down. I see government dependents going up, in number.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:11:42 PM

Thought not... ;)
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 2:52:51 PM

"I would like to see a correlation between the unemployed numbers and the government dependent numbers."

I would like to see a comparison of 'Actual Unemployed' numbers from 2 years ago compared to 'Actual Unemployed' numbers today (since the right suddenly doesn't like to use the Official unemployment number anymore, although it was a perfectly accurate indicator for decades prior to Obama);

Feb 2013: 22,344,803
Feb 2015: 17,525,367

Anybody care to twist this statistic now as well since it clearly shows job growth?

;)
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,751
Points:2,890,430
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 1:54:43 PM

I would like to see a correlation between the unemployed numbers and the government dependent numbers.

SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,133
Points:3,975,015
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 5:16:16 PM

"How many people are actually unemployed"

Billions and billions.
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,751
Points:2,890,430
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 5:07:35 PM

Very sad state of affairs these days, I75.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 10:02:05 AM

"So put that little statistic up your tailpipe and light it."

More taxpayers?

Smoke that ;)
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 10:19:33 PM

0bama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009

"President Barack 0bama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009."

So put that little statistic up your tailpipe and light it.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 3:42:40 PM

"But of course you will try to explain away that little conundrum with another smirky snarky post.

Saw you coming......"

Aw, you make it sound like you don't like me. :(

"so employers will not hire any more full time workers in order to stay under the threshold."

That has always been the case.

"I forgot to post the part about how many of the "new" jobs are part time. And of course many of those part time jobs might have been full time"

Sure some of those jobs are indeed part-time. Again, that nature of the beast. Part-time positions always come first.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 3:18:22 PM

I forgot to post the part about how many of the "new" jobs are part time. And of course many of those part time jobs might have been full time except for the onerous burden of 0bamaCare, so employers will not hire any more full time workers in order to stay under the threshold.

But of course you will try to explain away that little conundrum with another smirky snarky post.

Saw you coming......
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 2:39:15 PM

"I do. For every story announcing a new business opening up, there is a story about one cutting back or going out of business."

That is the nature of Capitalism... The strong survive, the weak do not and new replaces old.

But none of that has anything to do with the continued drop in the 'Actual Unemployed' number touted by you and your fellow Tea Partiers (the number you are now abandoning as it, too, reflects a recovering economy).

"As sad as all these statistics are (sad but true), is it amusing to see 0bama's minions spin themselves into pretzels and knots trying to explain away all the continuing bad news."

Keep parroting those talking points from your Faux Friends ;)
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 2:08:07 PM

I do. For every story announcing a new business opening up, there is a story about one cutting back or going out of business.
From January: Americans quit seeking jobs, unemployment rate drops
From Sept. 2012: How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? "The actual monthly amount can be calculated and the Atlanta Fed even did us a huge favor by publishing an interactive monthly jobs calculator so you can go check for yourself. This month shows we need 104,116 payroll jobs to maintain the same unemployment rate of 8.1% with all of the other same terrible conditions the state of employment is in."
From Nov. 2012: Who Got Jobs During the Obama Presidency? "A new analysis of government data shows that two-thirds of the net increase in employment since President Obama took office has gone to immigrant workers, primarily legal immigrants."Since President Obama took office, 67 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal)."

"There were 1.94 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) working in the third quarter of 2012 than at the start of 2009, when the president took office. This compares to a 938,000 increase for natives over the same time period."

We have seen that new employment does not cover the number needed to keep up with the nation's growth in population. We have seen that new jobs go to immigrants in much larger numbers than to native Americans. And we have seen that many people, instead of finding a job, get on SSI Disability instead. The Number Of US Citizens On Disability Is Now Larger Than The Population Of Greece! Record Number: 10.9 Million Americans Collecting Disability (that was May 2013)

But keep on deluding yourself the the economy is getting better and that unemployment is being reduced and that your lord 0bama is responsible for it all.

As sad as all these statistics are (sad but true), is it amusing to see 0bama's minions spin themselves into pretzels and knots trying to explain away all the continuing bad news.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 1:18:55 PM

"Very hard indeed. I watch the economic news daily, and I haven't seen any."

Let me help you - open your eyes!
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 12:27:43 PM

>>> VERY hard to see good news regarding the economy while he is still in the Oval Office, isn't it?<<<

Very hard indeed. I watch the economic news daily, and I haven't seen any.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 9:46:21 AM

"Very difficult to watch Mr. Obama patting himself on the back the last 2-3 days"

I'll bet. VERY hard to see good news regarding the economy while he is still in the Oval Office, isn't it?

Keep dishing that hater-aid! Some are bound to lap it up...
maryanneusa
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:2,925
Points:685,485
Joined:Jun 2013
Message Posted: Oct 4, 2014 8:25:51 AM

Very difficult to watch Mr. Obama patting himself on the back the last 2-3 days, I can't believe he can stand at any podium and tell those lies with such an attempted straight face. He obviously feels he's getting his "kool-aid" past and into his dwindling minions.
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,675
Points:1,735,890
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Oct 4, 2014 7:59:13 AM

Jobs report underscores Obama's economic dilemma

10-3-14

"The size of the labor force dropped by nearly a hundred thousand putting the participation rate at a more than three-decade low of 62.7 percent. Before the recession the rate was 66 percent.

Even more troubling, average hourly wages actually dropped a penny to $24.53. The so-called U6 jobless rate, which takes into account involuntary part-timers and those too frustrated to look, is still at a very high 11.8 percent.

Obama's economic dilemma was on full display this week when aides touted a big presidential speech on the economy at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. The speech was intended to show voters who give the president dismally low marks on the economy that Obama was on the case while highlighting all the improvements over six years ago.

But the speech, which included a tired recitation of previous proposals that went nowhere on Capitol Hill, fell completely flat. In fact, the only real headlines out of the address were generated by Republicans crowing over Obama's remark that: "I am not on the ballot this fall. … But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." '
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2014 10:30:33 AM

Surely you jest.......
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2014 10:29:53 AM

From the link in the OP;

Official Unemployed: 9,488,068

Actual Unemployed: 18,565,145

Yep - still trending positively, regardless of which metric one whishes to believe in.

"You can slice it and dice it however you like, but the reduction in the "unemployment rate" is being affected MORE by people "leaving" the labor force than finding jobs. Period."

Don't be bitter because people better planned for retirement than you... <s>
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2014 10:21:30 AM

Last month's figures are out. How does 5.9% sound?
September Rate 5.9%

Like another meaningless number, that's how.

232,000 found jobs.

315,000 left the labor force

There are now 92.6 Million people out of the labor force.

You can slice it and dice it however you like, but the reduction in the "unemployment rate" is being affected MORE by people "leaving" the labor force than finding jobs. Period.


[Edited by: I75at7AM at 10/3/2014 10:23:21 AM EST]
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,845
Points:48,600
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 8:38:00 AM

Many are unemployed, under-employed or unemployable since they're UNAVAILABLE or UNWILLING to work various jobs, hours, mornings, nights, weekends, days, 2nd/3rd shifts, rotating shifts, on-call, on-the-road, out-of-town, at changing locations etc.

Many employers cull out the majority of job applicants due to availability alone.

More and more employers want to see very wide availability, even from part-timers.

Many lose their jobs due to availability as well.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 8:16:19 AM

"undereducated
undertrained
unqualified
unfit
unwilling
unresponsive
irresponsible

In other words...undesirable by employers"

Ah, there's a believer in the '47%' myth!
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 12:31:59 AM

" Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country?'

.....

Unemployed??? Don't you mean Unemployable...seems more accurate to me.

Words best describing todays unemployed:

undereducated
undertrained
unqualified
unfit
unwilling
unresponsive
irresponsible

In other words...undesirable by employers



[Edited by: KansasGunman at 9/25/2014 12:35:31 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:57:10 PM

Whoa. Neat trick...

Somehow your link in the other thread reb allows me to make a post under your name in this thread.

:P

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 9/24/2014 9:58:06 PM EST]
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:26,272
Points:2,652,140
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:56:42 PM

OK reb, I'll repost here;

"Wrong Weasel, these numbers have been around for a long time, you might like to check the government web site..."

LOL, certainly the number have 'been around' however nobody was talking about them under W when his unemployment rate was at 5.0% when he left Office, yet now that the unemployment rate is back down to 6.1% (from a peak of 10.0% in '09) the only thing the Right can talk about now is 'Actual Unemployment' or 'work force participation' to try to deflect negatively.

Convenient.

"This link shows unemployment rate at 6.1% in August, but people "participating in work at 62.8""

The participation rate has been declining since 2000 when it was at 67.3% - prior to that it increased steadily since ~1966. Now that the Baby Boomers are retiring (for one)... For comparison, Post-WWII levels of work force participation were ~59%, FYI. Unemployment was also below 3% - I don't recall anybody complaining then either.

"Though that might require some...thought."

I agree ;)
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:49:40 PM

"Read the story. They quit counting them. Duh. Thanks for being REDUNDANT again, as well as WRONG again."

Again;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated."

;)
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:26,272
Points:2,652,140
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:48:48 PM

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery




"The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 6 percent unemployment five years after the recession officially ended, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain less than one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Over 6 percent of U.S. adults are now on Social Security Disability Insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs."





Obama Adviser Says Policy Can Boost Workforce Participation





"Betsey Stevenson, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the administration is working to enhance labor force participation, which has fallen to multi-decade lows, in part by increasing the incentives for discouraged workers to again enter the market. In addition, she cited policies targeted directly at helping disadvantaged members of minorities, who have much higher unemployment rates than the general population."



"Some of the recent decline is due to the retirement of baby boomers, but Ms. Stevenson said “not all of the decline in participation we have seen is the result of natural and good developments. In fact, the long-term trend of declining participation in employment rates for many groups, such as prime-age men, and particularly young black men, is troubling, and merits a policy response.” she said.

The jobless rate for young black Americans aged 16 to 24 was 24.8% in July, compared with a 12.2% rate for white youths in the same age group."

Lot a people not participating....
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:26,272
Points:2,652,140
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:36:43 PM

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery




"The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 6 percent unemployment five years after the recession officially ended, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain less than one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Over 6 percent of U.S. adults are now on Social Security Disability Insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs."





Obama Adviser Says Policy Can Boost Workforce Participation





"Betsey Stevenson, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the administration is working to enhance labor force participation, which has fallen to multi-decade lows, in part by increasing the incentives for discouraged workers to again enter the market. In addition, she cited policies targeted directly at helping disadvantaged members of minorities, who have much higher unemployment rates than the general population."



"Some of the recent decline is due to the retirement of baby boomers, but Ms. Stevenson said “not all of the decline in participation we have seen is the result of natural and good developments. In fact, the long-term trend of declining participation in employment rates for many groups, such as prime-age men, and particularly young black men, is troubling, and merits a policy response.” she said.

The jobless rate for young black Americans aged 16 to 24 was 24.8% in July, compared with a 12.2% rate for white youths in the same age group."

Lot a people not participating....



[Edited by: reb4 at 9/24/2014 9:41:31 PM EST]
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,562
Points:3,242,285
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 8:52:38 AM

Read the story. They quit counting them. Duh. Thanks for being REDUNDANT again, as well as WRONG again.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 8:42:47 AM

"You can count them any way you want to, but you can't hide the truth."

Correct - directly for the OP's link;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated."

;)

"There you go, chuckles. Fewer people unemployed, based on how you count them (just don't count them)."

Strange, since this is the number which is supposedly represented by the "Actual Unemployed" number you and so many others have been touting for years in your constant need to find something to rant about. Wassamatta, even that old go-to is no longer a viable source for criticism since it has dropped by ~4 million over the last year+?

LOL!!!
Post a reply Back to Topics