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.
I did not say that. I was talking unemployment. Private sector jobs are expanding. Public sector jobs are contracting. That is one reason why UE is so high. Most federal money goes to salaries, or to contract employees.
This is the opposite of under GW Bush. He was not able to grow the private sector, but hired public sector employees like crazy. Both sectors need to be healthy to lower the UE rate.
All together now...."Happy days are here again........."
??????????????????
ABC news said the number of new hires dropped to the lowest level in 6 months and the only reason unemployment percentage dropped is a half million quit looking for work.
Wrong - unemployment fell because more people dropped out of the workplace, so private sector jobs are NOT expanding.
Private sector is the one that has kept net jobs in the positive territory. We have now see 37-straight months with positive job growth in the private sector.
Private Sector Employment:
Feb 2010: 106.85 million
Mar 2013: 113.33 million
Change: +6.48 million
Public Sector Employment:
Feb 2010: 22.47 million
Mar 2013: 21.87 million
Change: -600K
In fact, public sector employment is lowest since Jan 2006.
Gotta love how the right includes people retiring in the numbers "giving up looking"! You realize baby boomers are retiring in huge numbers right?
Do you realize how very wrong you are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
So people are "giving up looking huh?"
Yes, that's what happens when government gets stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Too good to find any kind of work they can get, so they prefer to not work at all?
Unfortunately, that is not one of the questions on the Census Bureau's questionnaire surveying 60,000 households each month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
And where do they go?
Who cares as long as they aren't sucking up my tax dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
If they're able bodied they can't get gov assistance. If not retired they won't have social security and pension.
They all moving in together?
No doubt, the phrase "one wage-earner household" is not part of your vocabulary.
When an household goes from two wage-earners to one wage-earner, do you think it's likely that household income increases or decreases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5trillion
It's not as though people die, retire, move abroad, start a business, join the military, etc...
Uh, as shocking as this may be, dead people are not part of the Civilian Non-Institutional Population.
Retired people are counted as part of the Civilian Labor Force so long as they are working or seeking work.
People who have the strength and courage to endure and persevere under Obomney's massive business regulations and start their own business are counted as part of the Civilian Labor Force.
People in the Military are counted as part of the Civilian Labor Force.
I get the distinct impression you have never visited the BLS web-site and don't understand the definitions for "employed," "unemployed," "Labor Force" etc etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
So my 16 year old daughter whose job, as far as I am concerned, is to go to school is counted in the numbers of those not participating or giving up?
She is not included as part of the Civilian Labor Force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
It only takes a fraction of the 76-79 million Baby Boomers to retire every month to make massive dent on the labor force. It's hilarious watching the shills use the "Obama math" line--BB retirements have been accelerating since the failed Bush Presidency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
10,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 every day and 200,000 retire and/or drop out of the labor force every month.
Right-wingers fail at everything.
Uh-huh.
Let's test your theory using government data from the Social Security Administration.
53,723,000 January 2013 Monthly Snapshot 53,597,000 December 2013 Monthly Snapshot
----------------------------------------------- 126,000new persons receiving either Social Security Retirement or Social Security Disability benefits.
53,880,000 February 2013 Monthly Snapshot
53,723,000 January 2013 Monthly Snapshot
-------------------------------------------
157,000 new persons receiving either Social Security Retirement or Social Security Disability benefits.
Note that persons on receiving Social Security Retirement or Social Security Disability benefits may be employed, or seeking work and thus part of the Civilian Labor Force.
If I may be so bold......try researching the facts before regurgiating your Obamabot E-Mail Forum Talking Points.
As I pointed out on another thread, an average of about 135,000 are either retiring or approved for SSDI each month, so your claims that a "fraction of the Baby Boomers" is making a massive dent, and that 200,000 retire each month has been soundly destroyed.
Well said Mircea. What many people and the government DON'T do is to compare the various agency numbers like you just did regarding UE and SS.
The MSM obviously doesn't bother since they are telling us this is all because "boomers are retiring".
And we're going to hear that for some time to come as the height of the baby boom births was 1957 so we have 10 more years of hearing this as the reason for the declining work force.
Unemployment Rate:
March 1978: 6.3%
March 1979: 5.8%
March 1980: 6.3%
March 1981: 7.4%
March 1982: 9.0%
March 1983: 10.3% March 1984 7.8%
March 1985 7.2%
March 1986 7.2%
I filled in 1984 to 1986 for you.
What's your point, to say Jimmah Carter wasn't as bad as Reagan?
With your numbers let's slide some inflation numbers in which battling inflation, this accomplished by raising interest rates, caused the higher unemployment rate.
March 1978: 6.55%
March 1979: 10.09%
March 1980: 14.76%
March 1981: 10.49 %
March 1982: 6.78%
March 1983: 3.60%
I know you weren't alive then but inflation was worse than unemployment.
So how did Regan's "trickle down" and "Reaganomics" do for job creation compared to the current piece of garbage in the white house?
Reagan was in office for 96 months and during that time jobs grew from 91,031,000 to 107,133,000 for an increase of 16,102,000 jobs for an average monthly increase of 167,729 jobs over the entire 96 month period.
Obama the communist has been in office for 48 months during that time jobs grew from 133,631,000 to 134,810,000 for an increase of 1,179,000 jobs for an average monthly increase of 24,562 jobs over the entire 48 month period.
Got that? For his entire time in office on a monthly basis Reagan created 6.82 times as many jobs as the Kenyan.
I know....
Facts, make them go away!
\
Meanwhile recent headlines on Drudge...
POVERTY SPIKES TO 1960's LEVELS...
Nearly 50 Million Americans Below the Line...
Child Hunger Rates 'Alarmingly High'...
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.
