Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:28 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:31,485
Points:2,826,380
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
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 1:31:08 PM

"Official Unemployed: 10,411,375

Actual Unemployed: 19,461,155

Weasle and Obama must be right. According to those numbers from the link above, there are more people working now. What I meant to say is, there are less unemployed people right now?"

That's right - fewer 'takers'...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 1:30:27 PM

"Why support someone who keeps trying proven failures, hoping against hope to end up with a different outcome?"

He did the right things, he just did them too late and in too small of a scope... I shudder to think of what may have happened had he done nothing at all.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 10:51:47 AM

Official Unemployed: 10,411,375

Actual Unemployed: 19,461,155

Weasle and Obama must be right. According to those numbers from the link above, there are more people working now. What I meant to say is, there are less unemployed people right now?


[Edited by: 101Speedster at 4/22/2014 10:52:41 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,406
Points:1,620,715
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 8:10:24 PM

I75: "The proverbial "wall" is what we are up against!"


Now you know why I'm so pessimistic about our future. I don't see any way that ratio is going to go down until something so bad happens that government is physically unable to keep paying people not to work.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:9,679
Points:1,775,660
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 5:23:42 PM

Weaselspit said: "I do not support Obama 100% when it comes to his economic policies"

You shouldn't support him AT ALL regarding ANY of his policies. He's proven to be a failure in every respect, but that was anticipated with the knowledge that he was pushing ideology that has failed many times before.

Why support someone who keeps trying proven failures, hoping against hope to end up with a different outcome?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 8:28:03 AM

How many people are actually employed in the private sector, and thus supporting the retirees on Social Security, the welfare classes, and also the many levels of government? The productive class has to shoulder the burden for all the rest, and gets to spend what money they have left over o their own needs and wants.

86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers

"Of the 103,087,000 full-time, year-round workers, 16,606,000 worked for the government. That included 12,597,000 who worked for state and local government and 4,009,000 who worked for the federal government."

"The 86,429,000 Americans who worked full-time, year-round in the private sector, included 77,392,000 employed as wage and salary workers for private-sector enterprises and 9,037,000 who worked for themselves."

"At first glance, 86,429,000 might seem like a healthy population of full-time private-sector workers. But then you need to look at what they are up against."

The proverbial "wall" is what we are up against!
Profile Pic
quizzer
Rookie Author Fort Worth

Posts:15
Points:12,625
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2014 1:29:08 AM

Pray for our country and pray for our President. This was my attitude when the President was one I didn't vote for and my attitude now when the President is one I did vote for. God bless the United States of America.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2014 1:43:13 PM

"Read that carefully. AVERAGE number of new jobs per month under Reagan was 233,000 and only 61,000 under 0bama.

Read that two or three more times.

Maybe even more that that for a few of you around here......"

Seems Like I remember saying this about Obama's record with regards to the economy and its recovery;

'I do not support Obama 100% when it comes to his economic policies. He wasted time early in his first term on items such as Cap&Trade and Obamacare when the economy should have been #1. This indeed led to a delay in the recovery as well as potentially making it harder for a quick recovery, which I believe is responsible for the slow pace we have seen to-date.'

I guess I have to post this stuff multiple times for it to register?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2014 1:05:05 PM

The numbers look pretty palty when viewed in light of the recent past.

Monthly job creation averages: Reagan 233,000; Obama 61,000

Read that carefully. AVERAGE number of new jobs per month under Reagan was 233,000 and only 61,000 under 0bama.

Read that two or three more times.

Maybe even more that that for a few of you around here.......
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:55:56 AM

As of 2/28/13:

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707
Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

As of 1/22/14:

Official Unemployed: 10,069,014
Actual Unemployed: 19,989,658

As of 2/11/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,664,617
Actual Unemployed: 19,432,580

As of 3/5/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,867,416
Actual Unemployed: 19,268,777

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going by the Tea Partier's 'non-skewed data' referencing the "Actual Unemployed" vs. the numbers used by the Government from 101Speedster's original link, a net gain of over 3 million people have found employment since 2/28/13.

It doesn't matter which metric you believe in, they both show the same indication of growth and recovery.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,987
Points:783,065
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:54:57 AM

Actual unemployed is a separate number from the contrived Unemployment rate. A truer picture can be found by looking at the number of working age Americans who are NOT working.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,297
Points:39,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:45:39 AM

Working full time will not disqualify many from qualifying for numerous handouts - tax credits, welfare benefits, local and private assistance.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:24:50 AM

So more people are receiving government handouts than are working full time jobs?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 8, 2014 9:55:21 AM

"You really should seek help for your drug addiction. It's obviously eating away at your brain!"

jeski - please stop attacking the posters on this forum just because your opinions differ from theirs...
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,297
Points:39,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 8, 2014 7:16:11 AM

Too many able bodied working age people aren't working, or they're working very little.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:9,679
Points:1,775,660
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 8, 2014 6:12:24 AM

BuzzLOL said: "EvilBushJr. left office with actual unemployment heading toward 100%... if not for bailouts, unemployment would have been 100% by Oct. 31st, 2008...!!!"

You really should seek help for your drug addiction. It's obviously eating away at your brain!
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:9,679
Points:1,775,660
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 8, 2014 6:09:11 AM

New numbers out yesterday from the BLS:

"Employers added 175,000 jobs in February, above the 150,000 economists had expected. The unemployment rate, which is drawn from a different survey of households, ticked up to 6.7% from 6.6% in January."

Gee, jobs added above expectations and the unemployment rate actually INCREASES. How does that happen?

(rhetorical question in this current ObamaNation, isn't it?)
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:2,380
Points:42,025
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2014 10:58:49 AM

. Unemployment/UnderEmployment prolly closer to 40% now...

. EvilBushJr. left office with actual unemployment heading toward 100%... if not for bailouts, unemployment would have been 100% by Oct. 31st, 2008...!!!

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/glec-o11.html
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,297
Points:39,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2014 10:48:20 AM

The worst local stores to work at are many of Walmart's competitors.

Few people other than current and past employees hate on them since they're not as big and successful as Walmart.

Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,297
Points:39,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2014 10:36:20 AM

We know literally dozens that work for Walmart, most of which like their jobs and working conditions.

Walmart has more opportunities for full-time, flexible hours and promotion than competitors and doesn't push their workers as hard.

The local Walmart Distribution Center starts many low skilled workers @ $16 plus per hour, plus shift differential, performance incentives, benefits etc.

--Walmart stores will also hire many of the job seekers others have rejected and many of the workers others have fired which is a huge benefit.


[Edited by: MarkJames at 3/7/2014 10:36:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:21,875
Points:2,113,515
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 11:02:37 AM

"I hope you are treated better than is generally reported."

.....

About the only people with heartburn over WalMart from what I've heard have been from lowlife union pukes.

Our sister-in-law in Xenia Ohio is retiring next month from WalMart after 25 years full time and has nothing but good to say about them.

[Edited by: KansasGunman at 3/6/2014 11:04:23 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 10:54:54 AM

"Weasle, you are the one who can't stay on topic. I have responded to every one of your dodges as you attempt to defend the sorry record of the economy under this administration."

I can only assume at this point you no comprehending my posts for some reason as I have quite clearly pointed out the flaws in Obama's record with regards to the economy.... It isn't a matter of staying on-topic in as much as it is a matter of staying consistent with your talking points, fyi.

"but there are still fewer employed than when 0 took office..."

Which goes back to my assertion that you are not understanding what I have posted previously.

"And yes, I prefer to count them all, that's what this thread has always been about. Whether the government decides to declare that people whose unemployment benefits have run out have magically "left the workforce" I say we still need to count them."

And again;

It doesn't matter which metric you believe in ('Official Unemployed' vs. 'Actual Unemployed'), they both show the same indication of growth and recovery.

"I understand very well the concepts we have discussed in this topic. And I don't need to Google 'WalMart' as I work there."

I hope you are treated better than is generally reported.

Like your updated avatar, btw; Goooooooo, Dayton Flyyyyyyyyers! D! A! Y! Tttttttttt-O! N! Dayton! Flyers! Go UD! I'm a fan.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 9:15:07 AM

Weasle, you are the one who can't stay on topic. I have responded to every one of your dodges as you attempt to defend the sorry record of the economy under this administration.

When people retire, they are no longer counted in the labor force. So all your straw men don't count. The unemployed still need to be counted. And yes, I prefer to count them all, that's what this thread has always been about. Whether the government decides to declare that people whose unemployment benefits have run out have magically "left the workforce" I say we still need to count them.
Yes, more people are employed this year than a year or two ago, but there are still fewer employed than when 0 took office, and the rate of new job creation has not kept pace with the rate of increase in the population.
You need to accept and understand these facts.

I understand very well the concepts we have discussed in this topic. And I don't need to Google 'WalMart' as I work there.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:21,875
Points:2,113,515
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 8:45:31 AM

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

.....

Lot of whiners, losers and crybabies out there that would rather sit on their ass and take unemployment, welfare and food stamps rather than work simply because they're too lazy to work and expect a free ride in life.

"Winners stay winners and losers stay losers"...Winners are working.

*****


"And for the record,

I do not belong to the Democratic Party.

I do not belong to the Republican Party."

.....

I don't belong to either party and haven't for 25 years as both parties suck.
GDI through College and GDI today...
BTW The "tea Party" is not a party in spite of typical accusatory rants from the left side of sanity.

"

[Edited by: KansasGunman at 3/6/2014 8:51:13 AM EST]
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:22,086
Points:2,157,550
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 8:36:12 AM

However as this report properly points out the % is quite enlightening as well

And for the record,

I do not belong to the Democratic Party.

I do not belong to the Republican Party.

I do not belong to the Tea Party.

And the "growth" as you mention is not something to write home about....

Also, ADP Projections indicate lower than projected job growth in February

[Edited by: reb4 at 3/6/2014 8:36:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 8:25:52 AM

"--OK, are you saying George W. Bush caused the recession?"

Caused? No. There are a great many things that 'caused' the Great Recession, no one person 'caused' it - and certainly Obama had nothing to do with it whatsoever, which was my point.

"then how come Obama hasn't been able to get us out of it?"

We 'are' out of the Recession...

"After all, aren't his socialist policies supposed to HELP America? It seems to be hurting it, in fact."

*sigh* - again;

Just as I did for I75 and e_jeepin, I'll help you to drink as well;

As of 2/28/13:

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707
Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

As of 1/22/14:

Official Unemployed: 10,069,014
Actual Unemployed: 19,989,658

As of 2/11/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,664,617
Actual Unemployed: 19,432,580

As of 3/5/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,867,416
Actual Unemployed: 19,268,777

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going by the Tea Partier's 'non-skewed data' referencing the "Actual Unemployed" vs. the numbers used by the Government from 101Speedster's original link, a net gain of over 3 million people have found employment since 2/28/13.

It doesn't matter which metric you believe in, they both show the same indication of growth and recovery.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 8:21:48 AM

"As for the numbers posted just below, see that there are consistently TEN MILLION underreported unemployed. That number has not changed. And every one of those persons needs a job. Actually unemployed.

Understand?"

I'll repeat this for you since you seem to not grasp the concept;

"It doesn't matter which metric you believe in ('Official Unemployed' vs. 'Actual Unemployed'), they both show the same indication of growth and recovery."

"I hold 0bama responsible for presiding over the weakest recovery from a recession, ever, with the possible exception of FDR's mishandling of the economy in the 1930s, prolonging the Great Depression."

Be thankful it is still a recovery, given his mismanagement during the most crucial phase of the Recession.

"You assume a lot."

And you spend too much time looking into your crystal ball looking for 'what-ifs' and should-could-woulda's. Point?

"We know from the 0bamacare discussions that many companies are limiting workers to 29 hours a week so that the employer avoids health insurance requirements"

Which has been going on for much, much longer. Google 'Wal-Mart'...

"And 3 million new job holders pales in the face of the nation's growing population. There are now twelve million more working-age people in the country than there were when 0bama took office. So about one out of four of the noobs has a job."

Funny that you should hang your hat on this when previously it was how many people had 'abandoned' the workforce - you know, those pesky Baby Boomers retiring...

Pick an argument and stick with it, at the very least.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,053
Points:3,210,235
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 11:33:50 PM

Our weasel said: "Yeah, W's Recession really took its toll, didn't it?"

--OK, are you saying George W. Bush caused the recession?

And if you are, then how come Obama hasn't been able to get us out of it? After all, aren't his socialist policies supposed to HELP America? It seems to be hurting it, in fact.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 8:18:58 PM

"Yes, the recovery could have been better as I outlined to 101Speedster. But it is a recovery none-the-less, and 3 million people just in the past year are back on the payroll and off of the government dole."

You assume a lot. You assume that all the people who have found jobs are full time. That is definitely not true. We know from the 0bamacare discussions that many companies are limiting workers to 29 hours a week so that the employer avoids health insurance requirements. Many workers who work part time are indeed eligible for welfare benefits, including food stamps.

And 3 million new job holders pales in the face of the nation's growing population. There are now twelve million more working-age people in the country than there were when 0bama took office. So about one out of four of the noobs has a job.

Nice statistic to hang you hat on. Or hang yourself with.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:15,098
Points:3,316,520
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 5:30:29 PM

too many
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 5:27:47 PM

I hold 0bama responsible for presiding over the weakest recovery from a recession, ever, with the possible exception of FDR's mishandling of the economy in the 1930s, prolonging the Great Depression.

As for the numbers posted just below, see that there are consistently TEN MILLION underreported unemployed. That number has not changed. And every one of those persons needs a job. Actually unemployed.

Understand?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 5:07:05 PM

"Liberals never understand the term "net gain" in jobs. They start counting 3 million from the 3 million lost under Obama. They count in just the opposite way with Bush -- figures lie and Democrats do too."

Just as I did for I75, I'll help you to drink as well;

As of 2/28/13:

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707
Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

As of 1/22/14:

Official Unemployed: 10,069,014
Actual Unemployed: 19,989,658

As of 2/11/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,664,617
Actual Unemployed: 19,432,580

As of 3/5/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,867,416
Actual Unemployed: 19,268,777

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going by the Tea Partier's 'non-skewed data' referencing the "Actual Unemployed" vs. the numbers used by the Government from 101Speedster's original link, a net gain of over 3 million people have found employment since 2/28/13.

It doesn't matter which metric you believe in, they both show the same indication of growth and recovery.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 5:00:12 PM

"It should have been six million to eight million, that's how.
Yes, it was a vast recession. And it's a half-vast recovery!"

Yes, the recovery could have been better as I outlined to 101Speedster. But it is a recovery none-the-less, and 3 million people just in the past year are back on the payroll and off of the government dole.

"Those without jobs are still unemployed. At least, last time I checked......"

And that number has been steadily, albeit slowly, shrinking from its peak - but has never been zero.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a complete failure? Not even a little.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 4:56:27 PM

"Really Weasle? Five years into Obama's failed socialist policies and hatred of business and you are still going to blame Bush Jr. for this failing economy?"

Um, no. Did you not read what was quoted? I75 seems to think that just because the bottom dropped out of the economy just as Obama was taking office, that he somehow is responsible for all of the jobs lost as the Recession went into full-swing...

"You Obama supporters have no shame."

I do not support Obama 100% when it comes to his economic policies. He wasted time early in his first term on items such as Cap&Trade and Obamacare when the economy should have been #1. This indeed led to a delay in the recovery as well as potentially making it harder for a quick recovery, which I believe is responsible for the slow pace we have seen to-date.

It is the Obama detractors who seem to have so shame (or memory).
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 11:09:56 AM

Weasle said, "Yeah, W's Recession really took its toll, didn't it?"

Really Weasle? Five years into Obama's failed socialist policies and hatred of business and you are still going to blame Bush Jr. for this failing economy? Just think where we could be right now if people like you had not given Obama a 2nd term.

You Obama supporters have no shame.


[Edited by: 101Speedster at 3/5/2014 11:10:49 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,297
Points:39,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 7:35:42 AM

Many workers, especially mid skilled and multi-skilled workers are working in the booming cash/barter economy.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,297
Points:39,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 7:31:12 AM

Our relatives that lost their jobs at IBM said that IBM is actually hiring workers, but workers with higher skills, different skills and multiple skills.

This is what's happened in many industries. Workers in the middle have been eliminated, however higher skilled and multi-skilled workers are very much in demand.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 2:54:54 PM

"... how 3 million jobs created in the last 12 months is a negative ..."

It should have been six million to eight million, that's how.
Yes, it was a vast recession. And it's a half-vast recovery!

Related to the OP?

Those without jobs are still unemployed. At least, last time I checked......

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 3/4/2014 2:58:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,496
Points:134,990
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 1:04:02 PM

Liberals never understand the term "net gain" in jobs. They start counting 3 million from the 3 million lost under Obama. They count in just the opposite way with Bush -- figures lie and Democrats do too.

On Obama's watch as of recently -- there is 1200 net new jobs. that accounts for the cooking the numbers by dumping people into disability and no longer counting non-participation "given up" rate.

In other words, the statistical method is skewed so badly that it cant be compared/contrasted accurately to any past President. Carter had a +3% net gain which is better than most Presidents in modern time yet the economy was an inflation "malaise" train wreck.

We are in an Obama induced Malaise right now which we will read about long after he retires on a Hawaii beach.


[Edited by: e_jeepin at 3/4/2014 1:08:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,927
Points:1,265,700
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 1:00:32 PM

Liars and statistics mix well it seems.
.
>>>The average annual labor force participation rate hit a 35-year-low of 63.2 percent in the United States in 2013, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The last time the average annual labor force participation rate was that low was in in 1978, when it was also 63.2 percent. Jimmy Carter was president then.

The BLS bases its employment statistics on the civilian noninstitutional population, which consists of all people in the United States 16 or older who are not on active duty in the military or in an institution such as a prison, nursing home or mental hospital. The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutional population who either had a job or who actively sought one in the previous four weeks.<<<

And the liberals keep trying to tell us that the odor coming from the hog pen is roses......
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 12:52:27 PM

"Fewer people have jobs today than did when 0bama took office. Fact. Go look it up."

Yeah, W's Recession really took its toll, didn't it?

Fact. Look it up.

"My only error was to assume that you would understand a sarcastic post for what it was. But I made my point and you missed yours."

LOL - please, do-tell how 3 million jobs created in the last 12 months is a negative - you know, something actually related to the OP (ie "How many people are actually unemployed in this country?")?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 10:19:12 AM

My only error was to assume that you would understand a sarcastic post for what it was. But I made my point and you missed yours.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 10:18:21 AM

Fewer people have jobs today than did when 0bama took office. Fact. Go look it up.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:54:18 AM

"And those numbers aren't good for 0bama. In fact, they suck."

Yeah, 3 million new jobs over the last 12 months is terrible (rolls eyes)...

"But thanks for finally replying to my snarkasm from Feb. 11."

No problem - I'm always here to point out your errors.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:52:41 AM

"Simple.
People are looking for work and will take a lower starting wage."

That was a tough concept, no? LOL - thanks for spelling it out for those who were not grasping it.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,412
Points:2,768,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:52:22 AM

The point is the huge undercount. A few million here, a few million there, pretty soon we're talking about real numbers.
And those numbers aren't good for 0bama. In fact, they suck.

But thanks for finally replying to my snarkasm from Feb. 11.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:50:42 AM

"Two of our relatives just lost their jobs at IBM."

Is this supposed to be an economic indicator, or are you just letting us know your relatives are incompetent?

"Nobody likes a whiner..."

So why are you always posting in such a manner with regards to your own work force?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,207
Points:458,370
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:47:26 AM

"Um, yeah. The "official" unemployment numbers undercount the actual unemployed by about ten million.
It wasn't easy, I had to use advanced calculus and algorithms, but I was finally able to discern the answer!"

Some people can't see the forest for the trees - very well horse, I'm a gonna make you drink!

Note the reduction in both numbers (which one prefers matters not to me) - 3 million people now with jobs compared to last year.

Now wipe your chin, I spilled some knowledge on it ;)
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,297
Points:39,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 7:49:51 AM

Two of our relatives just lost their jobs at IBM.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,053
Points:3,210,235
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2014 11:39:42 AM

I've been listening to a podcast from NPR called "Planet Money". It just so happens that just this morning I was listening to an old episode (been listening to them in backwards order). In this episode from June 2011, they quoted a statistic called "U-6". U-6 includes not only those unemployed, but those unemployed for more than a year and those who are working part time jobs, but wants a full time job. The estimate at that time was about 26%. Anyone able to look up U-6 for today? I'd still lay a bet that it's over 15%.

Just looked at the U-6 number. Check this out at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's showing 12.7%, but was over 15% last January. Interesting. When you look at some of these other numbers, ones that include people who still aren't working, it's a bloody scary number. You can see that the Democrat fools are trying to sugar coat the numbers, to be sure.

[Edited by: AC-302 at 3/1/2014 11:44:48 AM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics