Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did they point out to you there that the participation rate was much lower in the 1950's up to the 1980's?
Voluntarily. Women didn't work, remember?
At 63.4% your LFP Rate is on a par with the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Sucks to be you.
Why? There is no possible way that you can pay for Social Security and Medicare.
And yes, that also means there is no possible way to pay for a single payer national health plan or whatever.
Good luck with that...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by chele123
Actually, over 43 million Americans were on food stamps during 2010, which is 14% of the population.
Households.
Food Stamps are issued to households, not people. Only one person in a household is entitled to receive Food Stamp benefits. There are now some 47+ Million households in the US receiving Food Stamp benefits. According to the Census Bureau there are about 110 Million households in the US.
Note that a household is not a house. You can have 4 households in the same house: Grandma (1), Mother (2), Adult Daughter (3) and Adult Daughter's Free-Loading Boyfriend (4).
That is four households in one house. In this case, since Food Stamps are issued to households and not people, it is possible that all four could receive Food Stamps.
If there are 308 Million people and there are 110 Million Households then there are an average of 2.8 people per household and that would make 176,400,000 million people receiving Food Stamps.
That would mean 57.2% of Americans receive some benefit from Food Stamps.
read the article. it does not show it but 46% of americans work FTE.
they are carrying the rest of us. but mostly we make up the gap with lots and lots of debt.
I posted similar on economy thread here. On workforce participation and underemployed. BDI looks bad also. There appeared to be some Dems there... LOL. Not rosy.
As late as March of 1983 the participation rate was at 63.7%...
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS11300000_33149_1329711225346.gif (broken link)
Notice the participation rate began to fall when Bush II took office...
"Notice the participation rate began to fall when Bush II took office"
and under Obama it is free falling down.
And is that a function of anything Obama is doing? Oh yeah, smaller government means fewer jobs.
Of course, if corporate America was in the mood to begin hiring things might turn around. Bush had 8 years to get the trend going, in might take another year or two to reverse it.
All but your 4 fastest ships....... my dear Wesley!
Hmmm...seems the cult is back...
Even if science were able to combine the genes of Ronald Reagan and George McGovern to create the perfect president, we would still have to wait another 35 years until he or she were able to take office.
If we would just give Ron Paul the authority to rule by decree, all our problems would be solved overnight.
the anti-business attitude of the last three years has US corps hoarding trillions of dollars on their balance sheets , which equals lost employment opportunities.
Um huh turn the lights on and the roaches will scurry.
According to my math...
8.3% / 13.75 X 24.75 = 15%
we're still in a ****ing depression and the only job Obama cares about is his own!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
